Invisible data in night-time governance: addressing policy gaps and building a digital rights framework for cities after dark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As data becomes a key component of urban governance, the night-time economy is still barely visible in datasets or in policies to improve urban life. In the last 20 years, over 50 cities worldwide appointed night mayors and governance mechanisms to tackle conflicts, foster innovation, and help the night-time economy sector grow. However, the intersection of data, digital rights, and 24-hour cities still needs more studies, examples, and policies. Here, the key argument is that the increasing importance of the urban night in academia and local governments claims for much-needed responsible data practices to support and protect nightlife ecosystems. By understanding these ecosystems and addressing data invisibilities, it is possible to develop a robust framework anchored in safeguarding human rights in the digital space and create comprehensive policies to help such ecosystems thrive. Night-time governance matters for the data policy community for three reasons. First, it brings together issues covered in different disciplines by various stakeholders. We need to build bridges between sectors to avoid siloed views of urban data governance. Second, thinking about data in cities also means considering the social, economic, and cultural impact of datafication and artificial intelligence on a 24-hour cycle. Creating a digital rights framework for the night means putting into practice principles of justice, ethics, and responsibility. Third, as Night Studies is an emerging field of research, policy and advocacy, there is an opportunity to help shape how, why, and when data about the night is collected and made available to society.
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 | 0.038 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.045 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".