MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W961142276

Building the Liveable Creative City: Urban Cultural Policy and the Politics of Space in Vancouver

2014· article· en· W961142276 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maggie Chao

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsUrban spaceSpace (punctuation)Urban policyCultural politicsPublic spaceSociologyUrban politicsPolitical sciencePublic administrationUrban planningAestheticsArchitectural engineeringRegional scienceLawCivil engineeringArtEngineeringLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rise of the post-industrial economy, cities worldwide have increasingly turned to cultural flagship development in an effort to attract capital and build an image of a worldclass metropolis.This paper examines an instance of such development in Vancouver, Canada: the proposed relocation of the city's major art museum, the Vancouver Art Gallery (VAG), in order to explicate the politics of cultural policymaking and urban development as they unfold in the Vancouver context.While the VAG proposal was predominantly justified as key to building a globally competitive vision of Vancouver as a liveable and creative city, this paper illustrates how this vision breaks down when confronted with the consequences of its pursuit -such as gentrification and displacement -as an urban planning strategy.This paper ultimately points to the complex and contradictory ways culture is implicated in neoliberal urbanism, arguing that culture is unevenly valorized as a central component of contemporary city building in Vancouver.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0230.014
Scholarly communication0.0130.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummit (Simon Fraser University)→Same topicCultural Industries and Urban Development→French-language works237,207→