Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper’s idea was triggered by the exhibition “Cedric Price: Mean Time,” presented at the Canadian Centre for Architecture in Montréal. Starting with the premise that mobility is a contingent (Till, 2009) act, this text looks at the different time(s) created by this contingency. The seven time(s) here considered are: Suspending Time, Free Time, Expanding Time, Distorting time, Folded Time, Loosing time, and Living time. Through specific “spatial stories” (de Certeau, 2002) each time is explained, in their features, unfolding how time-mobility shapes the way we create different appropriations of space, transmuting not only places, but also the relationship between ourselves and the other. The faith in progress gives us the sensation of a non-stopping improvement of mobility, namely the infrastructures, systems and technology. It seems that everyday we have new ways to displace ourselves in space that are faster, and better. More speedy trains, more airplane flights, more cars, more...Nonetheless, we know that this linear time of progress is coexistent with other parallel time lines of disruption and failure. For example, the Portuguese trainroad known as “Linha do Oeste” has a long story of planned suspension attached to it: not only suffering from underinvestment and lack of maintenance but what is more with timetables that do not fit the needed working rhythms of users. All these are at the basis of what the detractors reclaim as the argument for suspension: the lack of users. By suspending time, human beings are being conditioned in their living mobility, with consequences that are far beyond this physical infrastructure and its occupied space. This is only a particular time case explored in this mean time.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".