Gentrification as (settler) colonialism? Moving beyond metaphorical linkages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Emerging discussions on the “settler colonial city” present a new agenda for gentrification research in settler colonial contexts. Accordingly, this paper examines the extent to which the gentrification literature engages with settler colonial dynamics, identifying three overarching approaches. While a small but growing body of literature frames gentrification as a contemporary mechanism of Indigenous erasure, other approaches engage with concepts of settler colonialism in abstraction from contemporary Indigenous life and claims to urban space. The paper argues the persistence of these abstractions undermines the recognition of settler colonial gentrification as Indigenous erasure and limits the current potential for the gentrification literature to contribute to the disruption of settler colonial relations. In response, there is a need for further empirical and theoretical work that attends to the impulse for Indigenous elimination as a unique dimension of gentrification in settler colonial contexts. Insight from literature on the “settler colonial city” underlines the particular importance of extending conceptions of anti‐gentrification resistance to emphasize Indigenous refusal of gentrified futures and examine how (settler‐led) anti‐gentrification responses disrupt or sustain settler colonial relations. These directions provide opportunities to (re)conceptualize gentrification and its responses in ways that address the reproduction of (dis)possessory settler colonial relations while recognizing “the flourishing of Indigenous life” (Dorries, 2019, p. 27).
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".