MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393126983 · doi:10.1017/9781788214933.003

Clustering cultural infrastructure in districts

2023· other· en· W4393126983 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alison L. Bain

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShipyardCreative industriesRestructuringBusinessCultural geographySpatializationGeographyEconomic growthEconomySociologyPolitical scienceEconomic geographyShipbuildingArchaeologyHuman geographyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION A cultural district (or cultural quarter in Britain and mainland Europe) is a location within a city where cultural and artistic infrastructure, services, activities and networks are concentrated and embedded (Roodhouse 2006). Informally emergent in mixed-use urban neighbourhoods from the embryonic and ad hoc presence of cultural practitioners, cultural districts revalorize built heritage as “hubs, nodes, and workplaces for creative production” in lifecycles that extend from spatialization to recommodification (Zukin & Braslow 2011: 132). In the cultural industries, a cultural hub in a single building is the most “extreme” form of clustering (Pratt 2021). Such cultural hubs, and the industries and practitioners who animate them with their labour, have become important urban economic change agents in cities around the world grappling with industrial decline and restructuring. They adaptively reuse redundant industrial infrastructure (e.g., harbour areas, elevated rail corridors, shipyards, factories, warehouses and storage facilities), offices, schools, hospitals, churches and prisons, turning it into cultural infrastructure that can foster creativity through human co-presence (Pratt 2021). These “creative brownfields” – “aesthetically distinct, derelict and flexible industrial premises” that have attracted the attention of artistic communities and youth subculture – have become formalized as place-making anchors of cultural infrastructure, contributing to structural changes in neighbourhoods and cities (Andres & Golubchicov 2016: 758). This chapter considers the informal and formal dimensions of cultural districts as urban infrastructure. It traces the historical roots of cultural districts to the precarity of artistic careers and the socio-spatial strategy of clustering as a means of professional survival. In the contemporary period, shaped by pandemic lockdowns, venue closures and event cancellations to control the spread of Covid-19, it demonstrates that economic uncertainties have deepened across the culture sector for practitioners and organizations alike, undermining the vitality and viability of cultural districts. Despite the seeming global ubiquity of cultural districts as an urban economic development tool, examples of this cultural infrastructure from Berlin and Leipzig in Germany and Toronto and Hamilton in Canada showcase intermediation in practice, demonstrating the range of cultural district spatial forms, programmes and rationales.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Industries and Urban Development→French-language works237,207→