The Mysterious Case of the Attacks Against the Halifax Public Gardens: The Enclosure of "Common" Property , Public Access to Nature, and Sustainability in the City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Article will first describe the “thick” textured approach and methodological tools of urban legal anthropology applicable to researching and analyzing urban contact zones, which is then applied as the Article proceeds with the case study of the Halifax Public Gardens and the tree girdling and arson incidents that took place in 2022 to 2023. To situate the category of property within Halifax and within which the Halifax Public Gardens are found in order to move further into a discussion of property access and enclosure in the city, the Article then provides a description of the categories of urban property involved in and surrounding the case study of the Gardens as well as Halifax more broadly. Through the use of this case study, the Article then explores a number of questions surrounding what the development, enclosure, and application of stringent local bylaws to a slice of urban nature such as the Public Gardens can mean within the interactions and reactions of a city’s urban denizens within such a space. Next, there is an analysis of various considerations, justifications, and problems engaged when determining governance frameworks, structures, and degrees of urban common and public property access and use restrictions. Here, the Article draws on the right to the city and the notion of the urban commons alongside a discussion of urban “contact zones;” spatiotemporal (in)equality and the “time zoning” of use and access to urban common and public space; property and “belonging;” and processes of “disembedding” that can be implicated by degrees of horizontal versus vertical urban governance frameworks. Finally, the Article moves from the Halifax Public Gardens case study to briefly offer the broader context of other concurrent local conflicts and interventions with regard to parks, people, and access in Halifax in terms of the proliferation of encampments in parks fueled by the housing crises taking place in Halifax as well as other cities across Canada and North America. While property in Halifax remains situated within a dominant structuring logic and colonial infrastructure of property, property relations, access to property, property enclosure, and forms of property, this Article will specifically narrow in on questions surrounding the structure and legitimacy of these existing dominant forms of urban public and common property.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".