Bibliographic record
Abstract
For more than 40 years, Neil Smith's rent gap theory of gentrification has been one of the most influential concepts in critical urban research. In recent years, however, the rent gap has been challenged as an economically deterministic tool suitable only for the study of inner city land parcels in certain types of deindustrializing cities of the Global North. But what if the rent gap was never really about economics, but instead about moral outrage? And what happens when moral and ethical questions about access to urban space are extended across multiple human generations? This article develops the concept of the moral rent gap: juxtapositions, tensions, and often irreconcilable contradictions in the present use of urban land in the context of intergenerational debts and responsibilities. Parcels of urban land are not clear, Cartesian locations, but are portals into multidimensional transformations of space and time produced through diverse, competing moral claims to the benefits of urban life.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".