Re‐working mobilities: Emergent geographies of employment‐related mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the last decade, an increasing number of geographers and other social science researchers have deployed the insights of the new mobilities paradigm to study work, labour, and employment. These insights include attention to the meanings, practices, and politics of work‐related movement as well as to multiple spatial and temporal scales and types of im/mobility for and at work. In a review of this literature, we find five different vantage points on “re‐working” mobility: articulations of labour migration with other forms of mobility; geometries of power in the daily journey to work; embodiment and affect in work‐related movement; mobility and labour across the life course; and co‐mobilities of workers, ideas, and things. We argue that on whole, a mobility lens offers a “critical phenomenology” of the dynamic relations between the everyday lifeworlds and broader political, social, and economic contexts of both paid and unpaid work. This is especially important as work involves ever more complex patterns and experiences of mobility and is more deeply entwined with the mobilities of other domains of social life. We conclude by considering the rich implications of “re‐working mobilities” for methodological diversity and for animating both mobilities studies and labour studies as critical geographical endeavors.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".