The new private urban governance: Vestiges, ventures and visibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growth, prevalence and influence of private urban governance, scholarship that explores the intimate workings of these manifold and mutating forms remains limited. While these private ventures carry forward elements from the past, the landscape of urban governance has nonetheless undergone profound transformation. Over the past few decades, the global expansion and influence of private governing ventures have reshaped how cities are managed, organised and experienced. This special issue on the New Private Urban Governance examines the constantly evolving modalities of private governance (i.e. business improvement districts/areas, condominium/strata corporations, gated communities, POPS and others) in a global context. Organised around new, interrelated themes of vestiges, ventures and visibility, this issue comprises case studies, syntheses of longstanding empirical projects and novel theoretical/conceptual interventions into political and spatial practices, knowledges and technologies of these privately governed realms. Focused on the spatialisation of politics, vestiges reflects the idea that while neoliberal forms of private urban governance continue to proliferate, they rely and build upon, rather than fully replace, earlier, more public governance practices, logics and spaces. Ventures emphasises that the private and market-oriented thrust of urban governance is heavily predicated on the protection and extraction of value and the intensifying financialisation of urban landscapes and life. Visibility highlights how governing technologies render private urban governance visible and in doing so highlight the politics of space. These three themes together expose the workings of the new private urban governance while invigorating further explorations of this complex phenomenon.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".