MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2496245629 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316227671.004

Geography: Securing places and spaces of securitization

2015· book-chapter· en· W2496245629 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Le Billon

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical geographyGeographerSecuritizationMainstreamCultural geographyGeographyDisciplineSecurity studiesHuman geographySociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceEconomic geographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With disciplinary roots in imperialism and the military, geography has long engaged with security issues. As the French geographer Yves Lacoste (1976) famously stated, "La géographie ça sert d'abord à faire la guerre" (Geography serves, first and foremost, to wage war). Mainstream geography grounded in materialist positivism provides spatial information to identify and address a broad range of security risks, including crime and terrorism but also natural disasters, diseases, pollutants, or chronic poverty. In contrast, critical geography drawing from anarchism, feminism, and postmodernism mostly seeks to demonstrate how insecurity is often paradoxically generated by dominant security discourses and practices, while striving to bring about progressive alternatives. Geography is thus not only a discipline deploying spatial analysis to achieve greater security, but also one concerned with the consequences of "securitization" and with emancipatory possibilities for a less vulnerable world. This chapter provides a survey of geography's engagement with concepts of security, charting some of the main questions, theoretical approaches, and methodologies of this broad discipline before discussing some of its strengths and limitations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207