The Liminality of everyday life - Creatives in the context of the Islands Trust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Liminality of everyday life – Creatives in the context of the Islands Trust \n \n \n \n \nCreative communities excite and invigorate individuals and may also provide opportunity for some local economies. Although desired, this creative community profile is not to be taken for granted and may not be the right pursuit for all settlement areas. \n \nSoon after the millennium certain urban theorists describing the shift of western economies from industrial to knowledge based, prescribed the use of culture-led initiatives focusing on artistic presence as an economic development strategy to attract knowledge-based workers. But such a strategy, using artists as an economic development tool, has proven to be more suitable to large urban regions than smaller, remote communities. In smaller settlements artists have a substantive role, making significant community contributions as opposed to just being part of an attraction strategy. \n \nThis research investigates the social, cultural and environmental planning context of Gabriola Island, a successful rural creative community, with special attention to the Islands Trust regional planning framework. The co-methodologies involved three years of ethnographic embeddedness relying on phenomenological hermeneutics. These embedded and interpretive methodologies yield very different results from previous studies and assisted in determining if any urban creative community traits shifted to the rural context. \n \nOverall findings were captured in three analysis discussions. The Gabriola creative economy depends on a concept I introduce as community vernacular - which encourages creative communities to be built from within. This inquiry also suggests the presence and role of ‘distinct place’, a concept which captures the spirit of the community. The findings in relation to local governance point to a disjunction between the Islands Trust and the lack of planning instruments required to adhere to their ‘preserve and protect’ mandate. The Trust has failed to foster a planning and governance model for its rural communities, where the arts and creative industries can continue to thrive. The Islands Trust planning toolkit, service, scope and approach must be updated with ecological and environmental best practices to fulfill its mandate thereby preserving and protecting distinct place and retaining the creative population. This important relationship between inhabitants and the region’s natural features explains why islanders become islanders. \n \nIn summary, the embedded and interpretive methodologies contributed to the research by facilitating relationships with creatives in the community and allowing personal observation to experience the liminal nature of the planning and governance system. The theoretical concepts of community vernacular and distinct place will be developed further and ultimately contribute to rural cultural sustainability.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".