Introduction – Geographies of Promise and Betrayal: Land and Place in US Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In various ways, the essays published in this special issue of the Canadian Review of American Studies testify to the perils, potentials, and necessities of “aestheticizing” the rapidly shifting social topographies of the United States. The concentration of immigrant and rural populations in cities during the latter half of the nineteenth century, for example, demanded the development of new practices and perceptions of affect and place, new somatic vernaculars and discursive phenomenologies, new styles and habituations that might accommodate the shocks of the new within the hoarier mythological narratives of frontier republicanism and American exceptionalism. In a more palpably destructive, perhaps, but no less dynamic fashion, the post-industrial dismantling of the securities of “place” compels scholars, artists, activists, cultural labourers of all stripes to question anew the unstable domains and terrains of American identity, questions we posed when deliberating our themes for the 2012 Canadian Association of American Studies conference on place and space in American Studies: What makes a house a home? What makes a home a good investment? What makes a real estate “bubble” burst? Who “owns” the streets? The water? The land? What makes this land your land, my land, or our land, from California to the New York Island, or beyond? How do you “occupy” Wall Street? How can you “walk for the cure”? How is land/earth/terrain understood and used? What are the distinct debates, discourses, and spatial practices that have defined American culture and society in the past, and how might they be changing today?
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".