MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211210463 · doi:10.1080/13621020302212

Practices of Urban Environmental Citizenships: Rights to the City and Rights to Nature in Toronto 1

2003· article· en· W4211210463 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liette Gilbert, Catherine Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueCitizenship Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Governance and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipRight to the cityAppropriationDialecticEnvironmentalismEnvironmental ethicsSocial rightsSociologyHuman rightsFundamental rightsNaturalnessRights of NatureRight to propertyPolitical scienceLawPoliticsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the conflicts and confluences of urban and environmental rights. To this end, we offer a brief summary of Henri Lefebvre's conception of ‘right to the city’, followed by an exploration of contemporary expressions of environmental rights and citizenship. We assert that citizenship should be critically understood not only as rights granted by a government, but also as practices through which the limits of established rights are (re)defined and (re)affirmed. Emphasizing a dialectical relationship between environmental and social relations, we present two Toronto, Canada case studies which we consider as enactments of re-appropriation of fundamental urban and environmental rights: home and water. These particular claims directly challenge the naturalness of dominant forms of discrimination and marginalization in the urban environment. We contend that these two cases push the boundaries of conventionally understood urban and environmental rights and emerge as claims to socio-natural or socio-ecological rights.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.032
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCitizenship StudiesSame topicWater Governance and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207