Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maps have traditionally been conceptualized as visual representations and studied for what they represent. In the past few years, however, scholars from different disciplines have started to approach them from new perspectives. Broadly speaking, art historians have shown increased interest in their materialities, and geographers and map historians in their social and performative aspects. This article reviews and synthesizes these approaches using the example of the atlas in its earliest and latest incarnations (Abraham Ortelius’ Theatrum Orbis Terrarum and Google Earth). Atlases are conceptualized as mnemonic tools activated through different types of personal encounters that are at once visual and tactile. Focusing on performative encounters between atlases and their users, the article calls for a re-conceptualization of maps as fluid objects that are always in the making. It also invites a reading of the history of cartography as a history of interactions and co-authorships between map-makers and map users.
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 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".