Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decades, Tactical Urbanism has emerged as a bottom-up approach addressing the state of abandonment or underuse of problematic urban areas through ephemeral, temporary interventions aiming to trigger positive and long-term benefits to derelict areas. While Tactical Urbanism interventions usually have a strong visual component, in this article we focus on the possibilities offered by sound-based tactical interventions informed by participatory design processes engaging residents and local actors of neighborhoods undergoing transformation. Highlighting the role of city users’ sonic experience in the everyday environment, we illustrate how a sound-based approach to Tactical urbanism can help exploring alternative means of questioning neoliberal urbanism, especially by supporting the livability of residents and city users beyond the primary drive toward visitors’ attractiveness. To support our argument, we present and discuss the outcomes of a two-year project in the Montreal’s Quartier des Spectacles, a neighborhood undergoing drastic social, spatial, and economic transformations. Here, after a first ethnographic and sonic investigation, we organized two participatory workshops focused on the sonic experience of the neighborhood, which culminated in the realization of a sound installation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".