Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, a new research program has emerged at the interface between geographic information science and geographical social theory, now called critical GIS. In this article I analyse the emergence of critical GIS as an example of knowledge production in geography. I examine its genealogy, highlighting the key debates, events, and individuals instrumental in facilitating a rapprochement between two initially opposed scholarly communities and tracing the directions that this has since taken. Addressing its current incarnation as critical GIS, I relate it to the critical theory tradition in the social sciences and assess the pertinence of the term “critical” for describing the epistemology and philosophy of critical GIS. I examine how technology, the geography of GIS research, and politics are shaping the future trajectory of critical GIS. Drawing on Helen Longino's vision for strong knowledge production, I argue that the future of critical GIS will depend on the ability of its practitioners to remain conscious and reflexively critical of their own emergent presuppositions.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".