Comparative Legal Perspectives on Cultural Land Trusts for Urban Spaces of Culture, Community, and Art: A Tool for Counteracting Displacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As cities redevelop and previously less desirable or marginalized portions of the city space are “retaken” by a city, areas that have provided affordable performance, rehearsal, and live/work space for the arts and culture sector are becoming increasingly less available for these uses. Focusing predominantly on the Canadian Civil Law and Common Law context with passing reference to other jurisdictions such as the US, Scotland, and the UK, this article explores techniques for managing the increased pressure on and increasingly rapid displacement of spaces of arts, culture, and community cultural wealth that is taking place in cities. To this end, in assessing newly adopted municipal and provincial cultural strategies that are intended to amplify and promote these same spaces that are being displaced as well as even more recent COVID-19 recovery plans for art and culture in cities, this article will narrow in on the potential application of the community-led cultural land trust structure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".