Bibliographic record
Abstract
John Urry's (2010Urry's ( [2000]]) Mobile Sociology remains as relevant as when it was first published.His 'manifesto for sociology' reveals the kind of grand plans that only theoreticians of Urry's standing have the courage to advance.His eloquent argument for a sociology that attends to 'the diverse mobilities of peoples, objects, images, information, and wastes; and of the complex interdependencies between, and social consequences of, such diverse mobilities' shifted the discipline onto new conceptual ground and framed new agendas for researchers, proposing new questions, theories and methodologies (Sheller and Urry 2006: 211).In Mobile Sociology 'the social as mobility' (Urry 2010 [2000]: 348 [186]), with 'global civil society' as its social base, replaced the 'social as society' (Urry 2010 [2000]: 348 [186]), a scheme developed in conversation with a broader set of arguments articulated by Mol and Law (1994), in Castells' (1996) account of networks as dynamic open structures, and the intertwining of human and physical worlds (Urry 2010 [2000]: 356-7 [194]) acknowledging that humans do not act independently from objects.Urry offers 'complexity', 'inhuman, mobile intersecting hybrids' as the 'basis of post-social knowledge' (Urry 2010 [2000]: 357 [195]).This chimed with developments in intersecting disciplines.Anthropology was rethinking culture in motion (Clifford 1997), and the production of migrant activities and subjectivities as place-making on the hoof (Rapport 1995).Geographers generated more dynamic approaches to spatiality, foregrounding intersection and connection; the run of life had found its pace and Thrift and Dewsbury's (2000) 'Dead Geographies and How to Make Them Live', captured this zeitgeist.The mobility and dynamism of social worlds were no longer arrested in the analytic gaze: henceforth knowledge must be mobile (Merleau-Ponty 2002;Bauman 2000).Mobility's moment deepens; which is why it is important to republish this paper and reflect on it further.In ' "gamekeeping", networks, fluids, scapes, flows, complexity and iteration', Urry (2010 [2000]: 347 [185]) spells out the lexicon of mobile sociology in concepts and metaphors that foreground mobility and unsettle the Knowles (Goldsmiths
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
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".