Bibliographic record
Abstract
This final section of the book features interviews with inspiring and engaged Detroiters who have strong visions for the city and how to make it more inclusive, just and fair. Many of these voices do not regularly feature in either academic debates nor wider policy, planning or political conversations about the city. I consider it an honor and privilege to be able to feature these voices within this book. Our first conversation is with Lowell Boileau, a Detroit-area-based artist and founder of the DetroitYES website. A fine art painter by training, Boileau began documenting the abandoned buildings of Detroit in the mid-1990s, long before it was fashionable or popular to do so. His Fabulous Ruins of Detroit web tour was an Internet sensation when it was launched in 1997. What sets this site apart from many others is the contextualization and explanation that comes along with his work. He has been described as a “longstanding documentarian” by Nate Millington (2013) and an “unofficial city historian” by Dora Apel (2015). Boileau lived in Highland Park between 1972 and 1999, and after moving with his family to Farmington in 1999, maintained a studio in the Michigan Building in Downtown. A visit to his web tour reveals “the story of modern day Detroit [that] will unfold in all its complexity.” His original Fabulous Ruins site has evolved into DetroitYES, a forum to discuss all things Detroit (see: www.detroityes.com). Your Fabulous Ruins of Detroit web tour was one of the first places that showed Detroit's ruined landscape; what prompted you to set up that site? It was a mix of mischief and concern. On the concern side, I am a champion of Detroit. I didn't feel that the story of Detroit was being fairly portrayed. I wanted to kick back against that by explaining, through the ruins, how the City of Detroit came to be what it had become. I wanted to bring to attention that some very important historic and architecturally significant properties were in danger of loss; that a loss of our heritage was at stake. There was a mischief side too. As far as city officials and most locals were concerned, they wanted to deny the ruins, shun them, and forget about them.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.105 | 0.013 |
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".