Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the fracture separating human from physical geography is not new, its pervasive presence appears to hurt scholarship even more deeply than in the past. This article formulates questions about the major factors that are responsible for the current separation, and explores realistic opportunities for fracture-healing. The identified obstacles reach beyond the effects of positivism: the paper recognizes the role of differences in the meaning and value assigned to change and time. Nonlinear theory is shown to operate far from the expectations related to positivism, in innovative, fluid ways, both in physical geography and in human geography. Notwithstanding nonlinear theory’s potential to act as a builder of bridges, the article argues that neither this, nor other methodological instruments can mend the disciplinary fracture, as long as the question of the mutual recognition of value is not openly addressed. The resulting renewal and cross-fertilization are worth the effort.
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 | 0.068 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.148 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.064 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".