Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘There is an economy of narrative, it will be said, an economy of memory. One cannot recount everything,’ wrote Jean-François Augoyard. ‘What can be known about what occurred during a walk?’ (2007: 68) Over the last decade, explorations on foot of New Delhi have erupted as urban practices indicative of global tourism. These range from middle-class explorations to heritage walks, ‘slum’ walks and pedestrians’ explorations of local ecologies. Delhi, as a perpetual capital-city across the centuries, has emerged as a palimpsest of loss, glamour and resistance in urban history, oral legends and poetry. Old Delhi—now part of postcolonial Delhi, but functioning as a former walled city within a larger global identity—continues to occupy a liminal position in urban discourse, its proximity to modernity still calibrated in accordance with its older history as the capital of the Mughal Empire. Walking remains the primary mode of navigation in parts of Old Delhi, speaking to the possibility of walking as a performance of everyday life in urban India, a conversation that, with a few exceptions, remains heavily focused on walking in European, American and Canadian cities (Ingold and Vergunst 2008; Shortell and Brown 2014).In this brief manifesto of differing modes of walking in the contemporary socio-cultural space of Old Delhi, I seek to explore a decolonization of contemporary conversations on walking by highlighting the necessity of contextualizing walking’s proximity with the ground. Borrowing from methodologies of performance-ethnographic writing, this photo-essay interrogates closeness with the ordinary to destabilize dominant cultural narratives on walking emerging from the West.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".