Contestations/ Desire Lines: An Exploration of Regulation and Resistance in Public Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Contestations/ Desire Lines: An Exploration of Regulation and Resistance in Public Space” is a major portfolio that investigates the purpose and meaning of public space through the lenses of law, urban design, and urban activism. Public space in cities conjures images of shared urban spaces like parks, squares, plazas, streets, and sidewalks. These are spaces where public life plays out and are in theory, accessible to all. In practice, access to various public spaces, whether they’re publicly or privately owned and/or operated depends on the regulatory regime of the space. Regulatory regimes are made up of a variety of practices which include laws, regulations, urban design, surveillance, and policing (Ruppert, 2006). Informed by the components of my Plan of Study- public space, community planning, and land ownership and governancemy work seeks to understand how public space is produced and contested by multiple actors. Each chapter takes public space as a starting point. The first chapter, “Rejecting the Revanchist City” is an academic paper that outlines how municipal bylaws are used to regulate and “reclaim” public space by restricting behaviours considered to be conflictual to public order. The second chapter, “Design Paranoia: Defensive Urban Design and Public Space,” is a paper produced for a design and planning professional audience. It investigates how the use of defensive urban designs changes the experience of Toronto’s public spaces for groups of people who are targeted (like youth and people who are homeless), as well as the general public. The third chapter, “Who’s Streets? Our Streets! The Transformative Potential of Small-Scale Urban Interventions” looks at small-scale urban interventions as a way for artists and activists to disrupt, challenge, and reimagine how we use and plan our public spaces. Like desire lines, iii (unplanned paths created by foot or bicycle traffic usually representing the shortest or most desirable routes) community-led urban interventions can inform urban designers and city planners of the desires of the community in shaping their public spaces.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".