Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NEW POLITICAL GEOGRAPHIES Welcome to another issue of Territory, Politics, Governance that illustrates the expanding breadth and depth of an inter-disciplinary engagement with political geography. The papers represented here come from six disciplines – Geography, Sociology, Political Science, Anthropology, Economics, Area Studies – and have been written by interesting authors drawn from across the northern hemisphere – these scholars being based in the UK, USA, Canada, Germany, Finland and Greece. Their topics and methodologies range from North American water governance to European Union (EU) diplomacy in Kenya, from the political science of intergovernmental relations to neo-Marxist situations of the state as a social relation, capturing how exciting and dynamic the field of territory, politics and governance has become. In doing so, they illustrate the importance of this journal in providing the collective platform for bringing together these bodies of critical thinking. It is a pleasure to position these papers, individually and collectively, in their broader intellectual environment of ‘new political geography’ (JONES et al., 2004, 2015a ,p . 2–4). There have, of course, been a number of different approaches to defining the shifting field of political geography. To some scholars, political geography has been about the study of political bounded territorial units, demarcated borders and administrative sub-divisions (ALEXANDER, 1963). For others, political geography is the study of political processes, differing from political science only in the emphasis given to geographical influences and outcomes and in the application of spatial analysis techniques (BURNETT and TAYLOR, 1981). A third approach holds that political geography should be defined in terms of its key concepts, which the proponents of this approach generally identify as territory and the state (COX, 2002, 2013). This approach shares with the earlier two approaches a desire to identify the ‘essence’ of political geography such that a definitive classification can be made of what is and what is not ‘political geography’. Yet, the doing of political geography, i.e. how it is actually researched, is much messier than these definitions suggest (witness the variety of papers published in Territory, Politics, Governance to date – compare, ELDEN, 2013 ;J ESSOP, 2016 ;P ECK, 2013 ;S ASSEN 2013; STORPER, 2014). As such, scholars, who have sought to define political geography in a much more open and inclusive manner, have taken a fourth and more relational approach. Agnew, for example, defines political geography as ‘the study of how politics
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it