Integrating human geography into futures studies: Reconstructing and reimagining the future of space
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article explores the concept of the “future” through the lens of human geography. We examine how space may influence the way we perceive the future and how actors connected to this space will determine or undermine the kind of future to be unfolded. Particularly, we are interested in who influences the ideas of the future that explains how futures could be imagined and constructed. Already, the ideas of the future have utilized concepts of sustainability and climate change to demonstrate how futures may unfold. However, these envisioned futures, which mostly originate from a narrow perspective within a single space–time dimension, can be misleading. The ideas of the future can be challenged because space–time evolution alters the social structure of actors connected to space in multiple dimensions. As space–time evolves, new actors will be introduced, and actors who have been traditionally power‐less may emerge to contest and negotiate access to power to provide alternative ideas of the future. Understanding how power is negotiated and contested by these actors in the future is critical to understanding who has the future power.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it