Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Topographies: Visions of Space, Traditions of Place, edited by Julia Brauch, Anna Lipphardt, and Alexandra Nocke. Aldershot, Hampshire and Burlington, VR: Ashgate, 2008. 365 pp. $99.95. In recent years there has been a heightened critical awareness of role of spatiality in imagination, reflected in numerous conferences such Lehigh University's 2007No Direction Home: Re-imagining Geography, textual productions such Barbara Mann's special Prooftexts issue devoted to Literary Mappings of City, Eyal Ben-Ari and Yoram Bilu's Grasping Land: Space and Place in Contemporary Israeli Discourse & Experience, or my own Israel in Exile: Writing & Desert, to name just a few recent exemplars. Topographies (whose genesis was University of Potsdam's Makom: Place and Places in Judaism program) is certainly most critically useful investigation to date if only for its breathtaking historical, geographical, and cultural scope. It is impossible to fully convey riches here; suffice to say that scope of this groundbreaking volume manages to encompass an extraordinary range of evocative milieus, even including virtual worlds and meta-places such Mini Israel, brilliantly structured around five evocative themes (Construction Sites; Jewish Quarters; Cityscapes & Landscapes; Exploring C and Enacted Spaces). Editors Brauch, Lipphardt, and Nocke seek to overcome tendency to privilege time over (p. 1) that they see pervasive norm of studies (aside from spaces connected to traditions or Holocaust memory) while affirming Diaspora as a touchstone for globalization process that illuminates its premises, conditions, and perils (p. 3). The editors' corrective aim (they express impatience that literary studies' dominant paradigms of Our Homeland, Text and People of Book overlook empirical notions of space and place) is to explore neglected topographies in some instances and, conversely, to bring new angles to bear on more traditionally explored locales. The research model that inspires editors is that of Bund's rigorous commitment to specific Diaspora communities and histories. Hence, for most part, eighteen essays assembled here (exceptions noted above) examine lived space, or the location of presence rather than construction and interpretation of spaces on textual or metaphorical level (p. 2). Particularly admirable is editors' success in gathering essays that demonstrate connections between different topoi (Morocco and Israeli development town of Netivot, former Soviet Union and Brooklyn) well subcultures such historical mellah oi Fez or even religious micro-spaces of contemporary Budapest and Toronto. Many essays traverse literal and symbolic, such Miriam Lipis' perspective on sukkah A Hybrid Place of Belonging. Identifying four symbiotic realms of belonging embodied in this ritualized and ephemeral commemorative space (Land of Israel, Bible portable homeland, God's presence, and local), she draws on an impressively international study of sites in Europe, Israel, and U.S. to consider sukkah's function in modern urban contexts (p. 28). In her beautifully lucid formulation, sukkah is quintessential artifact of Diaspora, it constructs and expresses a hybrid concept of of belonging, which overcomes dichotomy of having or not having a place of belonging, by superimposing . . . real and imagined places (p. 31). Another worthy essay that ventures into nexus of symbolism and communal life is German architect Manuel HerzEruv' Urbanism which posits that eruv shifts current notion and meaning of private and public andintraduces a different understanding of space and territory into urban space (p. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,025 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».