Post-City (II): Cartographies of Imaginaton and Co-spatiality Politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a methodological standpoint, a comprehensive study of post-urbanism implies a cognitive fixation of any spatial event as co-spatial. We can talk about the co-existence of different cognitive/ontological regimes in the post-urban reality, which themselves can also be called co-spatial. Co-spatialities, understood as communicative event nodes, can be considered as key elements in a prototypical imagination map of post-urban space. Post-urban geo-cultures, producing a variety of cartographies of the imagination, are fundamentally heterotopic. Different communities become post-urban in forming their transversal cartographies of the imagination, constantly proliferate, become more and more co-spatial and, consequently, generate this post-politics which is aimed at accelerating a multiple dispersion of communicative events. Post-urban communities create post-political situations in which the cartographies of the imagination becomes the bases of new urban landscapes or new geo-cultures. The post-city develops practices and processes of hetero-textuality when the texts of individual geo-cultures do not assume a common space of reading, a plan of value, or a plan of expression, and only comes into existence in terms of consistent landscape modulations immanent to imaginary cartographies. Any post-city cartography of imagination supports special landscape modes which create the realities of material and mental character. Any cartography of imagination can be thought of phenomenologically as the line becomes a particular identity of individuals and communities. Post-nomadic mobilities lead to the coexistence of multitudes of such cartographies whose event co-spatialities create a post-political communities, and manipulate differences of the “velocity” of multiple communicative discourses. The creation of new cartographies of imagination forms post-urbanism as an art of detailed co-spatialities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".