Cultural and creative quarters: An analysis of their problems from a communication approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous urban and sociological research on cultural and creative quarters has identified gentrification, globalization and lack of citizen participation as key issues hindering the sustainability of these areas. This research analyses these issues from a communication and branding approach in three case studies of cultural and creative quarters in the United Kingdom: Digbeth (Birmingham), St. George’s Quarter (Leicester) and the Ouseburn Valley (Newcastle upon Tyne). In total, 64 participant observations and 24 in-depth interviews were developed. Besides, primary and secondary sources, such as maps, brochures, tourism guides, newspapers and scientific studies about these areas were analysed, thus achieving methodological triangulation. The results obtained were contrasted through Grounded Theory, in a way that data was obtained and iteratively analysed. This study adds new evidence pointing to gentrification and lack of citizen participation as issues that cultural and creative quarters face when being implemented and communicated. Furthermore, a new problem is identified. Namely, the lack of similarity between a quarter’s brand identity (theoretically related to revitalization and renewal) and its brand image (real values associated by their users, linked to insecurity and dirtiness).
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 | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".