Political Ideology, Community Openness and the Commons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vacant urban spaces are underutilized resources under threat that can be used to improve the quality of urban life and urban dwellers’ well-being. Yet, traditional (state or market oriented) approaches have failed to bring them to life, due to lack of necessary funds, investment interest or/and deficiencies in property rights. It has been argued (by scholars of different perspectives) that managing these spaces as commons constitutes a successful and sustainable practice, capable to address the social, political, environmental and nutritional needs of the respective community. Yet, the issue of defining this community remains controversial among commons’ scholars. Should the boundaries around the community be strict or fuzzy, and how important is group specification for the success of commons endeavours? The current paper aims to shed light to these questions. In particular, it seeks to explore the role that political ideology plays in prescribing community boundaries and the effect this (usually unspoken) rule has in the sustainable management of the resources. In doing so the paper employs the social–ecological systems (SES) framework to analyse two urban community garden initiatives of urban commons located in Athens, Greece, that differentiate on the degree by which membership is open and subject to political conviction. We find that adherence to a specific political ideology may increase community coherence but jeopardizes the sustainable management of the common resource, since the latter simply becomes a means of political expression, rather than the primacy concern of the group. This finding has certain implications for both theory and policy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".