Structural mechanisms of ethnic residential marginalisation by spatial dispersal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
17-21 October, 2005, Toronto Abstract Housing in Southern European cities represents the most critical and controversial of urban conditions for the settlement and socio-spatial inclusion of immigrants (as well as for an increasing proportion of natives). Innovative and strategic housing policies have been consistently neglected in the broader political and urban agenda. The gravity and complexity of housing problems and of segregation issues are underestimated. This is particularly conspicuous regarding the urban and residential integration of immigrants, a topic considered, to date, as politically extremely unpopular and as yet scarcely investigated. In a comparative perspective, the paper investigates the role played by housing regimes, socio-urban processes of differentiation and immigrants’ features in influencing the residential insertion of the immigrants, in terms of urban distribution and patterns of social and spatial segregation. Particularly, it demonstrates that the low levels of spatial segregation of immigrants hide a real problem of social exclusion related to socio-tenure differentiation, quality of housing, rent exploitation and precarious living conditions. It also explores whether current urban processes and housing dynamics have consolidated or reshaped such patterns and conditions of ethnic settlement towards higher degrees of socio-spatial segregation. Finally, the paper raises questions as to whether there are conditions for a less exclusionary residential insertion. It opens up a debate on whether the residential insertion of immigrants is a critical issue jeopardizing their overall inclusion in Southern European urban societies, because the current urban and residential conditions clearly restrain the immigrants’ access to resources and their potential for upward social mobility.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".