Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book provides for the first time in a single volume an explanation of the principles and practice employed in considering, developing and establishing cultural quarters. It takes examples largely drawn from the North of England, Ireland and Austria. The emphasis on case studies from the North of England is due to the need to regenerate the old manufacturing towns, avert decline and provide employment. Ireland and Austria provide instances of new building development. The volume is structured to assist local authority planners and economic development staff, as well as public agencies responsible for supporting and developing the cultural and creative industries. In addition, it provides a useful reference guide for those considering establishing a quarter or studying the subject. Cultural quarters have become an important concept in the UK, particularly with local authorities, as an increasingly flexible solution to urban development. In addition, there has been considerable interest in the creative cities concept, which has been thoroughly examined by Charles Landry in “Creative Cities”, and Justin O’Connor, “the Creative City”. This emerging discipline is developed and extended in this book by focusing on the “how” and “what” of cultural quarters, from a predominantly cultural perspective. A major concern in public sector cultural policy is how cultural practice is maintained and expanded without substantially increasing the public financial contribution. This has led to a deepening engagement with cultural economy arguments by governments, cultural agencies and local authorities, which inevitably gives rise to the question of sustainability. The book examines ways of sustaining cultures which rely less on State intervention, and the role of cultural quarters in the cultural economy. The book was very positively reviewed in Transition ®Tradition. It builds on earlier work published in the following journals; Journal of the Centre for Reform (2002) and Revisita De Museologia (2001).
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 | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.092 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".