The Commons as a Form of Urban Citizenship: From Post-Capitalist Resistance to Community Cohesion in Bologna
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter offers a comparative study of five urban commons experiences in the city of Bologna. They include three experiences that are social movement and activist in nature, one that is more of a cultural movement and one that is community-based. LU and PT self-identify as anti-systemic, anti-capitalist, CO aims at a more inclusive society that recognizes the rights of the LGBTQIA+ communities, while BL questions the sustainability of the mass consumption capitalist model. IS is a community-based group creating and sustaining neighbourhood social cohesion. Five different categories of analysis the authors selected to offer a deeper understanding of the nature and scope of each of these experiences and to what extent they can be understood as forms of citizenship: (a) inclusive commoning and governance; (b) feminist values and practices; (c) goals around identified and satisfied needs of beneficiaries; (d) appropriation of space/right to the city and ecology; (e) implication in politics and sociopolitical alliances. The authors explore the characteristics, values and actions according to which urban commons can be considered a post-capitalist or a post-industrial alternative to state- or privately run urban spaces or forms of resilience and social cohesion. The authors’ argument is that not all urban commons are post-capitalist and many experiences are in continuity with community organizing and social movement collective action that the authors define as urban citizenship.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".