MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390883092 · doi:10.1111/sena.12412

Restricted Access to Remembrance: Problematic Usages of Industrial Memories in Belfast's Titanic Quarter

2024· article· en· W4390883092 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christophe Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Ethnicity and Nationalism · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanityQuarter (Canadian coin)RedevelopmentMainstreamMythologyCollective memoryNeighbourhood (mathematics)HistorySociologyPolitical scienceMedia studiesLawEngineeringArchaeologyCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The paper addresses the contemporary usages of collective memory in the Titanic Quarter's project in Belfast, Northern Ireland. In the wake of the Good Friday Agreement, elected officials proposed urban revitalisation policies that aimed to mitigate the effects of deindustrialisation and the ethnonational conflict. On the old shipyard wastelands, public authorities were relying on the redevelopment of the built environment to suggest a shared urbanity but also a shared past, a connection with a common space, mobilising the myths and memories of the Titanic to achieve this. Yet, in a globalised world where memory increasingly surpasses national borders, it bears into question who is the targeted audience of this revitalised urban memory? Through careful observations in the neighbourhood and its flagship museum, the paper aims to criticise the use and manipulation of a conflictual working‐class memory to sidestep Northern Ireland's sectarian divide.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Ethnicity and NationalismSame topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207