Bibliographic record
Abstract
In September 2008, world credit markets froze and the global economy was thrown into turmoil. Though few used the term, many blamed the crisis on neoliberalism - on financial deregulation, tax cuts, and the hollowing out of the US federal government in particular. A new administration was ushered in on a platform that rejected, or at least backgrounded such policy measures in favour of ones that look vaguely Keynesian in nature - demand-sided spending, infrastructure investment, deficit spending to prime the economy. Does all of this mean that neoliberalism is over, or at least so fundamentally destabilized that it will no longer exist in its recent form? What, in particular, does this portend for cities? Will there be a reversal of the decades-long desire to deregulate industries, lower taxes, lower ‘constraints’ like wages? This paper presents recent research on gospel rescue missions in the United States and their differential role in the welfare safety net of various cities throughout the country. Two findings from this study shed cautionary light on the observation that the neoliberal city is set to evaporate. First, there is still an incredibly durable and uneven institutional geography to neoliberal social service provision as embodied by rescue missions in the US. Those places that relied most heavily on such institutions before the crash, will undoubtedly rely heavily on them now, regardless of the policy direction of the current administration. And second, there are certain sectors - like services for the homeless - that are not even being seriously discussed at this point. The destabilization of neoliberalism has thus been an uneven one in an political and institutional sense. Some neoliberal policy axioms have definitely been challenged, but other areas and sectors that were fundamentally transformed by the neoliberal turn remain coloured by that shift, and seem unlikely to change anytime soon.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".