MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288569146 · doi:10.46692/9781529202465.006

Ambassadors on City Centre Frontiers

2019· other· en· W4288569146 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Roving teams of brightly uniformed ‘ambassadors’ increasingly patrol the city centre frontiers of western cities as diverse and far-flung as San Diego (US), Nottingham (UK) and Winnipeg (Canada). According to one Canadian programme, ambassadors’ prime directive is to ‘welcome everyone’ to the city centre. Upon closer study, however, ambassadors are engaged in both more and less than this mantra suggests. Ambassadors do more than this, by seeking to secure the frontier of urban consumption zones through an array of direct, oblique and occasionally unofficial strategies. Prohibited from acting or self-representing as public police or private security, occasionally ambassadors flirt with such appearances or feign direct communication with these authorities to their own advantage. These efforts are intended to encourage panhandlers/beggars, ‘loitering’ youths, homeless people and other street ‘nuisances’ to cease their conduct or to move on. Thus, ambassadors also do less than ‘welcome everyone’ to the city core. Not unlike diplomats of dominant nations engaging less powerful ones, downtown ambassadors are, ultimately, backed up by coercive force, should their polite cajoling and visibility fail to deter undesirable conduct or spark a hostile reaction. While typically initiated, financed and managed by downtown business improvement districts (BIDs) (sometimes called business improvement areas or associations) or similar entrepreneurial organisations devoted to urban revitalisation, ambassadors also require tacit cooperation from public police, who (still) possess coercive capacities and whose traditional territory they now patrol. How ambassadors relate to public police is therefore paramount to the ‘clean and safe’ security that ambassadors seek to provide and embody on city centre frontiers. This chapter focuses on these aspects. Ambassador patrols Ambassador programmes have appeared across North America in recent years, and their numbers continue to expand. The ambassador concept was developed in the US and transferred to Winnipeg and Vancouver, and later to the UK and beyond. There are currently at least 14 Canadian programmes operating in downtown BIDs, including in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Kamloops, Sudbury, Moncton and Thunder Bay. In the US, ambassadors have been operating for several years longer in even more cities (at least 31), including Cleveland, Baltimore, Philadelphia, San Diego, Boston, San Antonio, Seattle, Atlanta, Austin, Portland, Minneapolis, Santa Monica, Dayton, Nashville, Denver, Charlottesville, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Honolulu, Jacksonville, Cincinnati, New Haven and Berkeley.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1470.017

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207