Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many wealthy societies have become dependent on the car for everyday transportation. This article contributes to a critical literature on automobility that examines the social, spatial, and cultural conditions that sustain car dependence. It argues that Henri Lefebvre’s work can sharpen a critical and historically situated politics of mobility, particularly by mobilizing the dynamic theory of the production of space that underlies Lefebvre’s various observations on the car. The article outlines the possible contours of such a politics by interrogating the heterogeneous relations of mundane mobilities and urban space. It contends that mobilities and space interact over time in uneven ways that produce distinctive and overlapping “neighborhoods of mobility.” After elaborating this conceptual approach, relying on critical geographic understandings of the neighborhood, and specifying how Lefebvre’s theory of space helps elucidate neighborhood–mobility relations, the article moves on to address two relevant criticisms of Lefebvre’s work as it pertains to the car. Finally, the article applies the notion of neighborhoods of mobility in an exploratory case study, examining how automobility has reassembled neighborhood in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Ottawa represents a critical case of this specific transition in neighborhoods of mobility, as it was conceived in a modernist blueprint and one of the most comprehensively implemented urban plans in Canadian history.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.005 |
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".