“No Skateboarding Allowed”: Municipal Bylaws, Urban Common and Public Property, and the Regulation of “Undesirable” or “Disruptive Use"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanics of daily local inequality and marginalization can be readily observed within the language of local bylaws that govern urban spaces and places and their use — whether these govern the hours and types of use that can be made of local “public” parks, spaces where loitering is identified as unwelcome, or how and where certain activities can take place. While affinity spaces can be, on the one hand, welcomed and celebrated for the mentorship of youth, extracurricular activity, environmentally friendly transportation, or as a skill-building goal-oriented endeavour, the language of bylaws creates an ecosystem equally predisposed to prohibiting certain activities within the public spaces and common spaces of many cities. But how does this reality meet up with public policy efforts and documents that identify the importance of encouraging youth inclusion for more comprehensive denizen participation within urban dialogue and sustainable development? What about initiatives towards sustainable alternatives to urban transportation and commuting? The uses of space in the city for these communities are oftentimes equally welcome and unwelcome within official policy. This Article will approach these questions through an in-depth case study of local skateboarding communities, notably that of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Through the lens of affinity spaces, it will take up the relevant bylaws, municipal signage, provincial legislation, and police enforcement procedures regarding skateboarding. In doing so, the Article focuses on the lack of clear legislation, rules, and policies regarding skateboarding as a use of space in the city. These gaps are also a symptom of marginalizing treatment of certain kinds of spatial use in the city. Here the Article will examine these gaps within the different kinds of shared urban property found within the city — public, common, and quasi-public. The Article will also compare the treatment of bicycles and electric scooters to skateboarding within these same urban legal frameworks, examining where the grey areas and gaps have been filled in regarding the wearing of protective gear, such as helmets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".