MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098483198 · doi:10.1353/sgo.2006.0005

Making Sense in Geography and Environmental Studies--a Student's Guide to Research, Writing, and Style (review)

2006· article· en· W2098483198 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jaclyn Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueSoutheastern geographer · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Geography and Geographical Thought
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnightStyle (visual arts)PoliticsCultural geographyInstitutionSociologyWriting styleEnvironmental studiesSocial scienceHuman geographyGeographyMedia studiesPolitical scienceArtLawLiteratureArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Making Sense in Geography and Environmental Studies—a Student's Guide to Research, Writing, and Style Jaclyn Hall Making Sense in Geography and Environmental Studies—a Student's Guide to Research, Writing, and Style Margot Northey and David B. Knight. Oxford University Press, ON Canada, 2005. 264 pp, $19.95 paper (ISBN 0195420985) Making Sense in Geography and Environmental Sciences—a Student's Guide to Research, Writing and Style provides advice to students to overcome writer's block, become familiar with their institution's library, and to avoid common errors in writing. The title of the book implies that it is designed specifically for students in geography and the environmental sciences, and the author's claim to examine both the general precepts for effective writing as well as "the special requirements of reporting the research process and findings in the social, physical, and biological sciences" (p. ix). However, I found little advice specifically for students in physical geography or the environmental sciences, and thus I believe the title is somewhat misleading. Margot Northey is a specialist in communication and former Dean of Queen's University's Business School in Ontario. David Knight is a professor of political geography at the University of Guelph, also in Ontario, and his work focuses on territoriality and the spatial organization of society. Dr. Knight's interests are demonstrated in the examples used throughout the book. When an example is given, it is usually from the perspective of planning or political geography, and there are no examples that would appear relevant to a student from environmental studies or from the physical side of geography. While reading this book, I was frequently confused as to the intended audience. The book has many helpful suggestions, but it also brings up many concepts that may be too advanced for undergraduates. I will give several examples because this dilemma kept resurfacing. To wit, the book's fifth chapter, "Writing an Essay" assumes that the reader is familiar with the approaches of logical positivism, feminism, humanism, postmodernism, structuralism and realism; other parts of the book provide simple advice such as remembering to put your name on your paper. The explanation of deductive and inductive approaches is brief and inadequate for students new to these concepts. Nor do the authors explain why or how students should consider these concepts in their own writing and research. If the book is intended for undergraduate students, which is the impression given by the chapter on lab reports, this leaves me wondering why more advanced concepts were brought up if they were not going to be explained in a more complete manner. Making Sense in Geography and Environmental Studies does contain some very good advice, but the best advice is often buried and hard to find. Key sentences that are so good they should be bold and repeated to students, are found midway within long lists or often at the end of long sections or paragraphs. Some of these long lists of advice to students may be more beneficial as shorter bulleted lists that are more to the point. [End Page 166] The authors do not seem to have spent enough time becoming familiar with how modern students operate. This edition supposedly has been updated to include the role of computers in writing, but I think it only weakly attempts to incorporate the use of computers. Most university students use computers in all phases of writing, from searching for interesting topics to taking notes on books and articles. The authors advise students to take notes for a research paper on index cards, and they remind them to keep such notes banded so they do not get mixed up. Conversely, typing notes on a computer not only allows one to keep all quotes, notes and other information in one document under the reference of the source, but it also provides the capability to search for a certain phrase, which is invaluable in the research and writing process. The section on preparing presentations is useful and gives good advice on organizing one's thoughts. Although this section did recognize and comment on the use of slide projectors, it ignored the use of PowerPoint for presentations...

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.020

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoutheastern geographerSame topicHistorical Geography and Geographical ThoughtFrench-language works237,207