View Corridors, Access, and Belonging in the Contested City: Vancouver’s Protected View Cones, the Urban Commons, Protest, and Decisionmaking for Sustainable Urban Development and the Management of a City’s Public Assets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Majestic views of mountains, sky, and sea are essential components of the visual and experiential identity of Vancouver, Canada. The experience of these vistas supplements other urban realities, such as suffocating living expenses and inequality. This Article explores a recent example of urban contestation over Vancouver’s view corridors as a shared public resource and public asset. As this Article explores, exclusion from access to public assets that provide meaning to daily life — such as the mountain views in question — damage an urban citizen’s sense of identity and belonging in a city through a hierarchical experience of access and possession. Through the example of contestation over the management and preservation of Vancouver’s view corridors, and the digitally networked connective action and protest that resulted, this Article also engages the notion of the urban commons as a lens through which these urban contestations can be framed and situates the relevance of these questions of access of urban citizens to public views within the context of UN-Habitat’s New Urban Agenda and UNESCO’S “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.”
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".