Grainger Market: a community asset at the heart of Newcastle upon Tyne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report demonstrates the importance and success of Grainger Market as an affordable and quality fresh food market and a welcoming and supportive community asset, particularly benefitting elderly and low-income groups in Newcastle. It is one of three reports documenting evidence from the Markets4People research project about the wide-ranging economic, social and cultural benefits produced by three of the UK’s largest and strongest traditional retail markets. Building on previous research, the reports bring a new focus on the importance of markets from the perspective of their existing customers. In each of the three case study markets, the research involved a survey of 500 market users (capturing a representative sample in terms of age, gender and ethnicity), two focus groups with selected user groups and around 10 interviews with key local actors, to contextualise the findings. Grainger Market was selected for this research as one of three exemplary case studies well-placed to demonstrate the wide-ranging economic, social and cultural benefits of traditional markets in the UK. Located at the heart of the historical city centre of Newcastle upon Tyne, Grainger Market is a Grade 1 listed large indoor market, owned and managed by Newcastle City Council. It is valued very positively by its customers and it was voted Britain’s favourite market in 2020. It is well known in the markets sector for being a traditional market which has incorporated new types of stalls, such as hot and street food, over the years. However, it is now at a turning point as the Council seeks to generate more income from this asset, coupled with calls to rethink the role of retail in city centres after negative impacts from the Covid-19 pandemic. This could see the Market become more of a leisure space in order to attract new customers. In this context, our research has focused on understanding the existing customers’ experience of the Market, including economic, social and cultural aspects, as well as wider governance issues.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".