MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7163126568 · doi:10.26108/cg00-yy16

Exploring social cohesion in public markets: a comparative case analysis

2025· other· en· W7163126568 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily Diverty

Bibliographic record

VenueAcadiaU-DEV · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingCohesion (chemistry)EthnographyThematic analysisBridging (networking)Comparative caseQualitative researchFocus group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public markets have been observed to have the capacity to strengthen social cohesion, though there is minimal research that considers this association. The objective of this thesis is to investigate the relationship between social cohesion and public markets, with a focus on two markets in Ottawa, Ontario. These markets, the ByWard Market and the Parkdale Market, are both operated by the ByWard Market District Authority. Considering these markets in relation to one another allows for understanding of the factors that influence social cohesion in each place. This pragmatist research was inspired by ethnographic methods, while using semi-structured interviews for data collection, and thematic coding for data analysis. Participants’ experiences varied at both markets, with some feeling more connection to one or the other and expressing various reasons for attending. These findings suggest that the Parkdale Market facilitates considerable bonding social capital, contributing to a sense of belonging within the community. Conversely, the ByWard Market contributes considerable bridging social capital, encouraging engagement between diverse groups. While each market has a valuable role within the community, it is evident that they are complimentary to one another.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.234
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.113 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcadiaU-DEVFrench-language works237,207