The geography of belonging: Place, proximity, and social support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is about belonging, about people's ties to others and the nature of those ties; such ties are referred to by social scientists as social support. Social support has traditionally been studied with respect to two dimensions: structural dimensions refer to the characteristics of the individuals who are part of an individual's social support network (such as their number, or the frequency with which they interact); functional dimensions refer to the types of support that are exchanged between people (such as practical help, or affection). In the early 1980s, Graham Rowles, an American geographer studying the elderly, proposed that the combination of the support received by the elderly, and the place in which it was provided, gave rise to sociospatial support---a concept that has lain dormant ever since. This thesis is an attempt to reinvestigate this concept, and explore how place (i.e., the neighbourhood) and proximity influence the social support that is received by the elderly (those aged 55 to 74) in the Outaouais region of the Province of Quebec. The research makes use of three data sources: information on basic structural and functional dimensions of support in the lives of the elderly is provided by the National Population Health Survey; a regional survey of the Outaouais elderly provides insights into the role of the neighbourhood and neighbours in the provision of support, with a particular interest in the provision of support by nonkin; and, finally, a series of interviews with selected elderly allow for understanding of the previous two stages within the context of individual experience. The research findings enabled the proposal of the kinship continuum, in which it was hypothesized that ties to nonkin could be placed along a continuum of intimacy or propinquity, with kindred of recognition anchoring one end, and kindred of communitatis securing the other. The most substantial contribution was the proposal of a framework for a geography of belonging, in which three modalities---network, properties of the person, and milieu---were identified and delineated along a number of attributes, in an attempt to advance Rowles's original concept.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".