Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part III is structured by what Katherine McKittrick has called “Black geographies,” which she defines as movements through and imaginings of space that expose the ways in which it has become racialized through the placing and displacement of Black people and the rendering of Black geographic space as “uninhabitable.” 1 Countering that “spatial project of domination,” she argues, “innovative Black diaspora practices … in fact, spatialize acts of survival” 2 and alter what Black geographies are and can be. Physical mobility has been strongly correlated to the exercise of autonomous personhood over and against attempts to deny both to African Americans. But as McKittrick reminds us, “innovative Black diaspora practices,” even as they “spatialize,” are far from limited to movements in and through space. Rather, she argues that Black geographies are as much philosophical and imaginative as they are material. Chapter 10, “Freedom to Move,” pursues just this expansive notion of mobility and movement as Janaka Bowman Lewis argues that African American women’s multiple practices of “education, individual progress, marriage and family, labor, and intellectual commitment” should be read, effectively, as “Black geographies.” With Charlotte Forten as a case study, Bowman Lewis considers the ways in which Black women exercised their autonomous personhood through quotidian practices, in place, as well as through physical mobility through space. For her, Forten’s participation in the Port Royal project is no more significant a practice than those she watches Sea Island women undertake, and in fact it is through her acts of observation – not necessarily through her movement – that Forten is led to a self-realization or actualization of freedom.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".