MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231258305 · doi:10.3351/ppp.0009.0002.0008

Book Review - Transcultural Cities: Border-Crossing and Placemaking

2015· article· en· W4231258305 on OpenAlexaff
Serene Tan

Bibliographic record

VenuePeople Place and Policy Online · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlacemakingNegotiationSAFERCross disciplinaryFocus (optics)Key (lock)SociologyAestheticsMedia studiesVisual artsUrban designArtArchitectureSocial scienceData scienceComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transcultural Cities is an edited text containing a diverse and cross-disciplinary selection of case studies centred around place-making through transcultural processes.The 21 chapters focus on distinct and specific spaces where cultures meet, and the strategies taken as communities negotiate with and around each other.The key idea in this text is the concept of transculturalism, and the authors draw from Pratt (1992), among others, to note how places are changed through the different cultures acting and interacting upon them.This book ultimately seeks lessons from the case studies, and Hou in his introductory chapter outlines the ways in which transcultural spaces potentially make cities safer and more accessible for their increasingly diverse populations, creating more livable urban experiences and mutual understanding.The rest of the book is divided into five parts, each containing four chapters.The first, Placemaking at the Margins, presents a series of case studies: South Asian Muslims in Chicago, Brazilian restaurants in Tokyo, West African immigrants in Seattle, and Chinese traditional festivals in Yangon, respectively.These chapters examine the way marginalised communities -particularly immigrants -inhabit specific places and change the nature of those spaces.For example, in Chapter 2, Sen's case study shows how the community combines religious (prayer) practice with commercial (restaurant) use to produce a transcultural space that can be used for different, and often changing, purposes.In this sense, places that would otherwise be classified as "ethnic" spaces, which tend to exclusivity, instead invite and support multiple communities, inviting hybridities and transcultural identities and activities.The second part, Placemaking in the Space of Flows, is not dissimilar from the first.The chapters continue to examine the transcultural spaces produced by migrant communities: Korean students and small business owners in the Philippines, Chinese migrants in Sydney, Asian migrant workers in West Malaysia, and migrant workers in Sheffield.However, the focus here is on flows, in which the movement of diverse peoples and cultures into and out of the space is key in the changing nature of the place.In Chapter 8, for example, Chang and Foo's case study examines how migrant workers from a diversity of origins: Nepal, Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh, among others, interact with the Chinese and Malay community in Kampung Kanthan in p. 157.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.009

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeople Place and Policy OnlineSame topicMigration, Ethnicity, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207