Urban citizenship for all? Exploring the limits of an agenda in São Paulo’s squats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Scholarly analyses often interpret the urban struggles of both marginalised citizens and marginalised migrants through the single frame of urban citizenship. Urban citizenship, in this literature, is generally understood as an agenda that seeks to achieve the full political belonging of all those who inhabit the city. This article questions two assumptions running through much of this scholarship. The first is the assumption that struggles for urban citizenship necessarily promote the full belonging of all city dwellers. I argue that this understanding does not adequately take into account the social hierarchies existing within citizenship. The second is the assumption that all marginalised city dwellers (including migrants) will claim for their political belonging to the city. These limitations in the urban citizenship agenda are explored in the divergent aspirations and claims-making of both Brazilians and international migrants living together in squats in central São Paulo, Brazil. I show how militant Brazilian squatters pursuing their full urban citizenship bring about progressive change while also unintentionally reinscribing social hierarchies within citizenship. I also show how migrant squatters are not clearly compelled by the prospect of full belonging in São Paulo, but instead often aspire to better futures elsewhere. In sum, I argue that analyses of urban struggles located at the intersection of migration and residential segregation should not assume that the urban citizenship agenda will be either universally inclusive or universally desirable in a given city.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".