Reckoning with the Spatial Turn: Cartography, Territoriality, and International History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do claims about space—for example, its delineation, representation, ownership, and control—shape human perceptions of order and governance? How does the imagined sovereign space of territory become manifest through force, law, ideas, institutions, technology, aesthetics, and other brands of human thought and action? Twenty years ago, The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography alerted specialists in international history and related disciplines to the importance of such questions by exposing the unspoken racial hierarchies and civilizational discourses embedded within maps, geopolitical categories (particularly the distinction between the First and Third Worlds), and other conceptual schemas about geographical spaces.1 Scholars already primed by previous or concurrent intellectual trends, such as the linguistic turn in history, social construction in the history of science and science studies, and the rise of constructivist analysis in political science in the 1980s and 1990s, readily absorbed the “spatial turn” and its implications for understanding how ideas about space and territory, along with mapmaking and other practices tied to their representation and management, exercise profound political, economic, and legal effects, whether local, regional, national, or global.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".