MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411141611 · doi:10.1080/24694452.2025.2505686

Neoliberalism’s Urban Fringe: On the Trail of Actually Imagined Free-Market Cities

2025· article· en· W4411141611 on OpenAlexafffund
Jamie Peck

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Association of Geographers · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeoliberalism (international relations)Free marketEconomic geographyUrban studiesGeographyEconomicsPolitical sciencePolitical economyEconomic growthPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exploring and problematizing “neoliberal urbanism,” understood in this instance as an empirically traceable, recurrent, and actually circulating imaginary, the article is concerned with a small but determined group of de facto neoliberal visionaries, ideational entrepreneurs, and policy activists, who through dispersed but well-connected networks are purposefully engaged in schemes to visualize, design, and even plan for free-market cities. Centering on these “properly neoliberal” visions of the city, the article analyzes the paradoxical robustness of this largely unrealized but insistently circulating idea. It tackles the emergent project of free-market urbanism as an ideational matrix, tracing continuities and tensions between a deeply ingrained strain of antiurbanism in neoliberal thought (both in the Old Testament of ordoliberalism and in the New Testament of the Chicago School), which serves as context and counterpoint to a critical assessment of the recent promotion, propagation, and intensification of purposive models for free-market cities. This ideational project might still be correctly characterized as “fringe,” but neoliberalism’s urban fringe is neither what, nor where, it once was.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 venueAnnals of the American Association of GeographersSame topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207