“It’s your city, only you can save it!”: \nSave Montreal’s Grassroots Opposition to Urban Redevelopment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, the urban conservation group Save Montreal actively opposed the city’s high-modernist redevelopment. To date, their efforts have been studied within the context of heritage preservation and its contribution to evolving notions of local identity. While Save Montreal was undoubtedly concerned with the retention of structures considered historically significant its members did not characterize themselves as heritage preservationists. Rather, I argue that Save Montreal’s membership constructed their organization and campaigned so as to challenge the means and process by which development occurred in the city centre. My use of oral history as a primary method of analysis reveals the socio-economic and political motivations of the group while also serving to democratize urban history. Oral history also represents a valuable means by which to understand and contextualize urban conservation movements. While local in operation and outlook, Save Montreal’s 1973-1985 activist period paralleled postwar grassroots conservation movements in other North American cities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".