Intensities of mobility: kinetic energy, commotion and qualities of supercommuting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the intensities of long-distance commuting journeys in order to understand how bodily sensibilities become attuned to the regular mobilities which they undertake. More people are travelling farther to and from work than ever before, owing to a variety of factors which relate to complex social and geographical dynamics of transport, housing, lifestyle, and employment. Yet, the experiential dimensions of long-distance commuting have not received the attention that they deserve within research on mobilities. Drawing from fieldwork conducted in Australia, Canada, and Denmark this paper aims to further develop our collective understanding of the experiential particulars of long-distance workers or ‘supercommuters’. Rather than focusing on the extensive dimensions of mobilities that are implicated in broad social patterns and trends, our paper turns to the intensive dimensions of this experience for supercommuters by developing an understanding of embodied kinetic energy, commotion and quality. Exploring how experiences of supercommuters are constituted by a range of different material and bodily forces enables us to more sensitively consider the practical, technical, and affective implications of this increasingly prevalent yet underexplored travel practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".