MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406573770 · doi:10.1080/02723638.2025.2450173

Liminal and interstitial: performances of ordinary citizenship in Winnipeg, Canada and Copenhagen, Denmark

2025· article· en· W4406573770 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sheryl‐Ann Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Geography · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiminalityCitizenshipGender studiesSociologyPolitical scienceAnthropologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immigrant residents in urban neighborhoods in Winnipeg and Copenhagen connect a range of everyday, and place-based performances to citizenship. These connections are made directly to the state as well as mediated through access to rights, responsibilities, and membership, opportunities to engage in decision and placemaking in neighborhoods and in public. There were two prominent types of ordinary citizenship observed (1) liminal where actions led eventually to membership in the broader polity. (2) Interstitial where residents turned their actions inward creating membership and belonging in their own neighborhoods and community spaces through practices including being at home in diversity, hospitality and visiting. In both cases, residents narrated their citizenship strategies in relation to the state and non-immigrant actors. For example, in Winnipeg, a combination of messaging and limited alternatives led residents to seek out home ownership to make their way into citizenship. In Copenhagen, where state actors interpreted immigrant citizenship strategies as a rejection of Danish values, residents explained their actions as necessary because of rejection by Danish society. The results add examples of actually existing citizenship beyond liberal norms, and provide examples of political practices of urban collective decision and placemaking that disrupt dominant inequitable norms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban GeographySame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207