MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383809621 · doi:10.56687/9781847422477-016

Urban renaissance and the contested legality of begging in Scotland

2007· book-chapter· en· W4383809621 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joe Hermer, David MacGregor

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Press eBooks · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeggingPrinciple of legalityThe RenaissanceLegislationLawPolitical scienceSociologyCriminologyHistoryArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter analyses the campaign to re-criminalise begging by City of Edinburgh officials in the late 1990s and the response of the then Scottish Office. It examines how anti-begging ordinances reduce the homeless to the status of bare life and provides a paradigmatic example of anti-begging legislation, the Ontario Safe Streets Act. The chapter discusses the difficulties of Edinburgh officials in drafting an offence, the reasons advanced against the case of making begging illegal again, and the implications of legalised begging for urban renaissance.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.039
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Press eBooksSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207