Walking with a Ghost River: Unsettling Place in the Anthropocene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The call to explore a different mode of being-human in what many have termed the Anthropocene, is an invitation to think about what it means to live in place in a more expansive and speculative way. It also asks that we take a different starting point for critical inquiry, and rather than pursue an explanatory end, the approach remains ‘curious, experimental, open, adaptive, imaginative, responsive and responsible’ (Gibson et al. 2015: i–ii). This paper charts the messy, and often faltering methodologies we have developed as a means of thinking through urban landscapes of colonial violence, and engaging with the ghostly forms of past histories in present-day urban places through the multi-sensorial experience of walking. In attending to the many complex connections and relationships between socio-economic, techno-political, and the more-than-human world, we broadened our lens of inquiry to include the multitude of related and interconnected spatial and temporal relationships that came across our path, and sought to develop a mode of ethical relationing with a ghost river.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".