The Business Ethic and the Ethic of Care: Business Improvement Associations, Emergency Shelters and the Hybridity of Urban Governance in Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Business Improvement Associations (BIAs) – also referred to as Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) – and emergency shelters are two important entities in the hybridity of urban governance and order, even though, facially, this might not appear to be so, especially given the fundamentally different nature of the ethic of each: between protecting and enhancing business (and, to some extent, community and residential) interests related to profit and property values (BIAs) and serving the wellbeing of marginalized persons, such as the visibly poor or homeless (emergency shelters). This paper reads the ethics of BIAs alongside and against that of emergency shelters to claim that while the interests, values, and rationales of each are profoundly and fundamentally different, one premised upon a business ethic (BIAs) and the other on an ethic of care (emergency shelters), each ends up being severely oppressive to marginalized persons whether by intention or implication of their very being. As such, the article examines the way different forms of governance come together in the current urban landscape and helps shed light upon some of the workings of the hybridity of urban governance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".