Not just parenting in the field: Accompanied research and geographies of caring and responsibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writinginour research companions, with attention to the importance of care in our fieldwork practices, is a political act that challenges the ways geography is believed to be practised, or should be practised. Once sidelined to footnotes and acknowledgements, research companions such as family members and research assistants have increasingly been rendered visible and their contributions considered. Yet, researchers remain reluctant to disclose their accompanied research in scholarly writing. Given this reticence, I contend that, collectively, such accounts are political acts and not warts‐and‐all disclosures of knowledge production. They challenge disciplinary norms over whose and which contributions count, and what constitutes a professional identity. Drawing upon Lynn Staeheli's (1996) insights into the potential for activism by transgressing boundaries of doing private acts in public spaces, and public acts in private spaces, I argue that doing and writing about accompanied fieldwork is fieldwork activism that re‐centres and values a caring geography.
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 | 0.022 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".