Bibliographic record
Abstract
This brief commentary on Henry Wai-chung Yeung’s “Rethinking Mechanism and Process in the Geographical Analysis of Uneven Development” makes three points. First, the commentary supports the article’s assertions that ‘analytical rigor’ is compromised when process and mechanism are conflated, that causal mechanisms are under- theorized in much economic geography, and that a latent realist ontology often lurks beneath interpretive and process-based approaches. Second, it explores the inherent hurdles that a revival of critical realism presents for efforts of engaged pluralism given geography’s contending perspectives on ontology and epistemology and multiple social and substantive theories. Third, the commentary concludes with a hopeful yet cautionary tale of what multidisciplinary engagement on causal mechanisms might entail given the ‘rigor mortis’ mainstream orthodoxy elsewhere in the social sciences.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".