La cohabitation dans les espaces publics: Conflits d'appropriation entre riverains et personnes marginalisées à Montréal et Paris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exclusion of marginalized people in public spaces has been a recurrent topic of human geography (Smith, 1996, Mitchell, 1997) but explanations mainly refer to macrogeographical level and entrepreneurial production of iconic public spaces. But conflicts of appropriation also exist in banal public spaces (Padisson and Sharp, 2007). In this thesis, we analyse this kind of conflicts, in two peri-central neigborhoods : Shaugnessy Village in Montreal and La Goutte d'Or in Paris. Relying on the vision of space as a topological structure of positions (Hubert, 1993), we study the issue of exclusion in public space through space's experiences of people. By taking interest in banal public spaces, we show that appropriation of public spaces also refer to dwelling pratices. They are used, through social relations and investment of specific values in space, as a home for homeless and marginalized people and as an extension of home for residents. Involving contradictory uses of public spaces, these dynamics of appropriation induce conflicts. The inadequacy of presence and behaviors of marginalized people with the desired residential way of life in the neighborhoods induce the mobilization of the residents and the process of purification of space (Sibley, 1995). In the face of marginalized practices of public spaces, a residential " us " appears, based on the " common " residential values. This reveals the will to create a protective and " coexistential interior " (Sloterdijk, 2005) over the public spaces, in which marginalized persons are not admitted, except if they conform to it. Diffusion of residential values in public spaces finally restrict self-recognition and their feeling of belonging to the neighborhood. They feel more and more " out of place " (Cresswell, 1996), which incite them to leave, or to normalize their own behaviors if they want to stay. In fact, residential domestication of public space, through the injection of residential values in space, reduces the opportunities to make these public spaces a home for marginalized people. Therefore, in banal and residential public spaces, through actions on space and the transformation of landscape, a new kind of urban exclusion appears: a " soft dispersal " which substitute for " zero tolerance policies ".
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".