MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595764972 · doi:10.1080/01426397.2017.1290791

Re-conceptualising political landscapes after the material turn: a typology of material events

2017· article· en· W2595764972 on OpenAlexaff
Martijn Duineveld, Kristof Van Assche, Raoul Beunen

Bibliographic record

VenueLandscape Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMateriality (auditing)TypologyPoliticsCollective actionSociologyEpistemologyPerspective (graphical)AestheticsCorporate governanceEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceAnthropologyPhilosophyLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper conceptualises and categorises the various relationships between materiality, discursive construction of landscapes and collective action. Building on both post-structuralist and non-representational geography, and incorporating insights from social systems theory and from evolutionary governance theory, we present a perspective on materiality as shaping landscapes, communities and cultures through different pathways. These pathways might involve the construction of landscape concepts and can potentially affect collective choice in political landscapes of actors and institutions. Five types of material events are distinguished: silent, whispering, vigorous, fading and deadly events. These events constitute the spectrum in which materiality and changes in materiality affect communication and action. Such conceptualisation and categorisations help to avoid setting up a harsh distinction between matter and discourse, or a simple choice for one over the other as ontologically prior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.029
Scholarly communication0.0100.016
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations47
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandscape ResearchSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207