The place of locational analysis: a selective and interpretive history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper has two purposes. The first is to provide a selective review of the history of locational analysis as it bears on economic geography. Three periods are examined: the German location school of von Thunen, Weber and L6sch that begins in the first part of the nineteenth century and ends in the middle of the twentieth century; American spatial science that starts in the mid-1950s and is in decline by the late 1970s; and the new economic geography associated with the economist Paul Krugman, and inaugurated by his 1991 book, Geography and trade. The second is to make a methodological argument. Locational analysis is most frequently justified in terms of the purity of its logical and mathematical reasoning, permitting some commentators to trace an unbroken line of progress over its 175-year history. I argue that such a claim is based upon acceptance of a broader philosophical position, rationalism - the belief that the foundation of knowledge is reason - which takes its most perfect form in logic and mathematics. Rationalism has been criticized in various ways ever since it first emerged in the Enlightenment, however, and the same critical sensibility informs this paper. Specifically, I criticize the rationalist interpretation of locational analysis by drawing upon a recent interdisciplinary body of literature arguing for the importance of local knowledge, the idea that knowledge, even abstract theoretical knowledge of the kind found in locational analysis, is shaped not by the universal but by the peculiar historical and geographical context of its production. This antirationalist argument in favour of local knowledge is exemplified by discussion of the three periods of locational analysis that form the paper's core.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".