In search of urbanity: metropolitan geographies of gentrification and middle-class migration from Toronto to Hamilton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the biggest questions surrounding gentrification is how it spreads. Presently, little research has examined the regional or metropolitan geographies of gentrification. However, as housing costs in big, global cities have become prohibitively expensive, there is a growing need to understand gentrification’s spillover effects to adjacent, mid-sized or secondary cities. Hamilton, Ontario, situated 70 kilometres southwest of Toronto, is a major destination for those priced out of Toronto. The aim of this article is to understand the metropolitan geographies of gentrification through an analysis of the push–pull factors of households that have moved from the Toronto Region to inner city Hamilton. We interviewed forty-two households that made this move. While Toronto housing costs are the key push factor, neighbourhood aesthetics of older Hamilton neighbourhoods play a major role; in-movers are drawn to the older urban form and walkable nature of these neighbourhoods. Price enables them to buy property, while similar aesthetics to Toronto allows for the replication of an urban lifestyle. Hamilton neighbourhoods, therefore, help maintain urban middle-class social reproduction, albeit in another city.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".