Bibliographic record
Abstract
This important book presents new international comparative research that engages critically with Lefebvre’s spatial theories and challenges recent thinking about the nature of urban space. The book elucidates the production of urban public space and in so doing stimulates a rethinking of Lefebvre’s spatial theories and the essence of public space. The two main research objectives are to tease out the implications of the production of space for post-industrial city transformation and to unravel the role of differential space in such transformation. Empirically the research is grounded in three iconic post-industrial cities: Vancouver, Canada; Lowell, Massachusetts, US; and Manchester, England. Although strongly rooted theoretically, the book locates the conceptual ideas in the practice of urban policy making, urban planning and the politicised everyday use of public space. Extensive original archival research and interview research in the three cities forms the basis for an exploration of how urban public spaces, especially what Lefebvre calls differential space, are socially produced. Spatial coalitions, counter-representations and counter-projects are seen as vital elements in such processes. Differential space is shown to erupt through the vulnerabilities of neo-capitalist abstract space. The book demonstrates the importance of inclusive differential space for everyday democratic life in cities. The book contributes critically to the post-industrial city comparative analysis literature and provides an accessible guide for those who care about cities, public space, city planning and urban policy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.466 | 0.321 |
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".