Review of Patricia M. Locke and Rachel McCann, Eds. "Merleau-Ponty: Space, Place, Architecture"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a well-known passage from "Eye and Mind," Maurice Merleau-Ponty argues that "I do not see [space] according to its exterior envelope; I live it from the inside; I am immersed in it.After all, the world is all around me, not in front of me" (Merleau-Ponty, "Eye" 178).What this means for him is that articulating space and light is no more "a question of speaking of space and light; the question is to make space and light, which are there, speak to us" (178).This is precisely what the papers collected in Merleau-Ponty: Space, Place, Architecture accomplish.By exploring Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology of space in its relation to place, art, and architecture, each paper aims to "draw [us] back from the forgetfulness that makes us take being alive for granted, [and] reopen thought about human perception of and relation to how we remake and occupy the world around us" (Locke 1).By analyzing Merleau-Ponty's notions of depth, temporality, memory, and the flesh in their relation to architecture and lived experience, the authors unpack "the experience and expression of space on multiple levels" (1).The editors divide their book into three sections: liminal space, temporal space, and shared space.These chapters can be read as standalone contributions, but it is also fruitful to read the book as a whole.Although they each grapple with different concepts, problems, and themes, most of the contributions can be read as encroaching upon one another, together opening up space for the dialogue desired by the editors.As Patricia M. Locke puts it, the anthology comes to a close not as a mere compilation of individual, self-contained pieces, but "as a conversation among the authors, with different interior worlds opening onto this book" (15, my emphasis).Reading this volume as a conversation helps us to better gasp the "integrated understanding of spatiality" sought by the editors.That is, an understanding that the temporal, spatial, and intercorporeal dimensions of our lives are intrinsically bound up with one another, together structuring the way that depth opens us up to a world.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.012 |
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".