MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7011295695

Microaggression and the Consumption of Poverty: A community's resistance to invasive walking tours in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside

2020· dissertation· en· W7011295695 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownNeighbourhood (mathematics)Consumption (sociology)NarrativePovertyNightlifeSpectacle
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 2014 to 2016, Jenn Potter ran a walking tour called Tours by Locals, leading hundreds of people through the poorest neighbourhood in Canada, Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES). This tour focused on what she described as social enterprises in the community and cost $185 per person. Though Potter ran this walking tour with the hope that it would lead to more understanding and compassion towards the neighbourhood and its residents, residents of the community and activists did not see it this way. In response to this tour, anti-gentrification activists held their own 'Yuppie Gazing Tour' down the streets of Vancouver yelling 'The Downtown Eastside isn't a safari, drive away in your Ferrari!' Though protests around Potter's walking tour led to its end, there are still an estimated 25 to 30 walking tours in the DTES today. Guides justify their presence in the DTES in various ways and treat tours as benign sources of education and entertainment for tour participants. Based on interviews with 13 walking tour guides and attendance in 13 walking tours in the DTES, this research argues that walking tours in the DTES are not benign and are, in fact, invasive poverty tours. Walking tours in the DTES contribute to a narrative that erases its residents' rights- based histories and continues a politics of dispossession and displacement. Poverty in the neighbourhood is both made a spectacle of and obscured during walking tours creating microaggressions against the DTES community. DTES residents are epistemically backgrounded– "both targeted and 'sub-merged,' both identifiable and indefensible...hidden in plain sight" (Dotson, 2017, p. 420). Community members are not bystanders or backdrops in this process. Through acts of microresistance and everyday resistance against walking tours, DTES residents make claims about their rights to the city. These forms of resistance presented against walking tours both nuance and challenge traditional understandings of how resistance is legitimized and preformed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207