Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the Brussels metro as a nonplace and considers the impact of blindness on nonplace. In discussing the {im}materiality of the metro, this article focuses on the experience of metro-time as “waiting and anticipation” and metro-space as “alone-together.” Along with this, the notion of a dialogue with blindness is introduced into this nonplace. We explore the relation between metro and blindness as dialogue: the meeting and aversion of two actors in the particular context of the Brussels metro. In this, the authors identify how the investment of particular agents makes the metro space more malleable. Two strategies are used, one considers the different world in which blind people live and experience spatial environments, thus suggesting the invasion of “another world” into a nonplace. The second strategy considers embodiment and performance, and how contextual features afford new representations and pathways through and into a nonplace. At the core of this work is an argument that illustrates how the dialogue between blindness and public space can reverse the quality of the {im}material sense of a nonplace. The ethnographic work that serves as the background for this article is twofold. First, observation of daily travel on the metro brings an understanding of the general characteristics of the metro system, which includes human interaction/s and performance. Second, through observation and documentation of a group of disability advocates, educators, designers, and planners worked together to create a more accessible metro system for people who are blind and visually impaired. Finally, it is argued that fundamentally, a dialogue with disability reverses the {im}material sense of a nonplace. The potential of blindness in reversing the metro’s nonplace qualities stems from the articulation of a sensory vulnerability in a time where vision has achieved a dominant position. Blindness-as-vulnerability is a significant agent for intra-action in the Brussels metro system, making it a safer environment, a more tactile environment, and one where information is added for the benefit of a particular group and also extending to all people.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".