Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commons have been described as an ethic of political action (Hardt and Negri, 2015) or as a political principle that aims to self-government (Dardot and Laval, 2015). That means they possess an ideological framework able to stand against the main regulatory institutions of our times, that is: representative democracy, capitalism and neoliberalism. Despite more than two decades of practicing, this counter-model has not reached its ideological goal. On the contrary, the more commons spread their diffusion as an «empty-signifier» within collective action repertoires and among public opinion, the more neoliberal aspects colonized our urban environments. A different, and less radical, theoretical approach looks at urban commons as tools for reshaping the relationship among citizens and local administration. This approach has also shown is limits, particularly in terms of the de-politization of urban ecosystems. If the preceding assumptions are indeed correct, what could be the empirical functions of urban commons? The hypothesis put forth in this chapter is that commons serve an “expressive” role for particular groups that may be considered an “avant-garde” in terms of cognitive resources and critical weltanschauung. The aforementioned hypoth-esis is been validated through the analysis of case studies in the municipalities of Bologna, Rome and Naples.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".