A Heterotopology of Urban Margins: Publicness in the Space of the City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Urban marginality is generally considered through the lens of exclusion. Policing and public policies, underpinned by private NIMBY (not‐in‐my‐backyard) attitudes and actions, aim to remove marginalized individuals from urban spaces. Yet they remain and are visible. As such, individuals across the urban margins share in publicness, which is the connection between strangers unique to cities borne from their visibility to one another. We suggest that publicness provides the terrain for an impactful mode of urban study, one which attends to the transitory encounters that anthropology has traditionally tried to transform and thicken. The ways in which individuals perform when they are visible in public displays something of how they understand themselves in relation to others, a form of mutual subjectification in which we as researchers are also implicated. Drawing on fieldwork in Ottawa, Ontario, with individuals who use drugs and individuals who panhandle, we analyze urban margins as other spaces and publicness as other relations using Foucault’s concept of heterotopia. This resulting heterotopology shows a different version of marginality in the city in which urban margins are not separate from but connected to the urban experience.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".