‘We didn’t have time to sit still and be scared’: A postcolonial feminist geographic reading of ‘An other geography’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we respond to Oswin’s ‘An other geography’ from a feminist postcolonial geographic perspective. We make three interventions. First, we decenter Euro-American Anglo geography spatially, insisting that we situate it in place, and are attentive to spatial, temporal, relational, and overlapping margins and centers. Second, we call for a more embodied account, recognizing the intimate is a lens onto and a site for the reproduction of spatial oppression and resistance. Last, we call for a reckoning with whiteness, a more sustained interrogation of its work both in spaces of domination and at the margins. A feminist postcolonial geographic assertion gives us perspective. It makes visible the situated and varied experiences of elided scholar-subjects in the Global South, and those otherwise marginal to the hegemonies of both Euro-American Anglo geography and its critics. And, in doing so, it forges new contours of connection, offering us more inclusive, complex, and disruptive opportunities for solidarity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".