MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973671687 · doi:10.1177/2043820619875329

Process, mechanism and the project of economic geography

2019· article· en· W2973671687 on OpenAlexaff
Kendra Strauss

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogues in Human Geography · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisciplineNormativeEpistemologyValue (mathematics)SociologyMechanism (biology)Sign (mathematics)Positive economicsCritical geographyProcess (computing)Human geographyEconomic geographySocial scienceEconomicsCultural geographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This response engages Yeung’s arguments about the value of critical realism (CR) in economic geography (EG), and how they can be further strengthened by better theorizing mechanism and process in relation to mid-level concepts like neoliberalization and path dependence. While there is much to value in the attention Yeung pays to how economic geographers conceptualize and study relational socio-spatial change, I argue that the lack of attention to how mid-level concepts relate to macro-level structures hampers the goal of more robust theorizing. Moreover, the association of CR with the reassertion of a disciplinary ‘core’ suggests a normative project that ignores or marginalizes diverse critical approaches in EG, which are framed as a sign of weaknesses rather than disciplinary strength.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.044
Scholarly communication0.0100.015
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialogues in Human GeographySame topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207