Planning imaginaries of co-existence in urban renewal. Families and persons with substance use disorders in Copenhagen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses new planning imaginaries of co-existence through the urban renewal case of Sydhavn (South Harbour) in Copenhagen. Although planners have traditionally placed family life in suburbs, away from the ‘ills of the city’, in this novel case planners built an imaginary of thriving diversity in urban spaces among newcomer urban middle-class families and persons with substance use disorders. Based on an analysis of planning documents, media representations, municipal meeting notes, as well as fieldwork, the paper concludes that building on the ideal of living together apart, planners capitalized on marginal residents to attract middle-class families, as they acknowledged middle-class social privilege and confidence in urban spaces (Kern [2005]. “In Place and at Home in the City: Connecting Privilege, Safety and Belonging for Women in Toronto.” Gender, Place & Culture 12 (3): 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/09663690500202590). However, the urban renewal plans intensified the living together in ways that made it impossible to maintain the necessary distance, and displacement of the persons with substance disorder followed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".