Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea for this article came to us after the publication of Chris McDowall and Tim Denee's We are here: An atlas of Aotearoa (Massey University Press, 2019). Little did we know that, a few months later, that title would take on a whole other meaning: as we write, WE ARE HERE-due to the COVID-19 pandemic, New Zealand's borders are closed and the nation's links to the world outside are uncertain. Two periods of lockdown (for those who live in Auckland) have prompted further reflection on both who the 'we' are and what is the nature of the 'here'. Taking McDowall and Denee's (2019) atlas as our starting point, we inquire into the 'geographical imagination' that informs their work and set it in the context of other visualisations of the national space found in the work of mid-20th century geographers. We suggest that these imaginative mappings became increasingly anachronistic in the light of in the light of rapid economic, social, and cultural changes in the last quarter of the 20th century. McDowall and Denee's (2019) atlas provides a thought-provoking representation of the national space on the eve of the COVID-19 pandemic. But that space is both a national one and one that risks confirming the stereotype of New Zealand as being at the ends of the earth. To counter this, we suggest its national geographical imaginations need to be set within the larger frameworks of global cartography and the intellectual problem of 'the nation' itself. The final section of the article juxtaposes We are here with three attempts to provide new maps for an island planet published in the1970s. The intention is not to critique but to jar us all into deeper reflection.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.010 |
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".