5 Cosmobility: The Cosmopolitan Pattern of Mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cosmopolitan Pattern of MobilityIn this section, I will discuss the second part of Malinka's life story and the life story of another of my respondents, Francis.Presenting these two narratives serves as illustrations for the pattern that I call cosmobility.Certainly, the cosmopolitan pattern of mobility contains heterogeneous life and mobility experiences.We will see that the mobility experiences to be analyzed here follow a different logic than the other patterns, particularly when it comes to the destinations: the places to which my respondents direct their mobility experiences.What is more, we will look at the circumstances under which mobility to various destinations come about and how these two individuals construct meaning around their movements.Malinka's life story is important in two respects: (1) her life story includes mobility practices that shift from one pattern to another (from transmobility to cosmoblity), and (2) it is exceptional insofar as it incorporates mobility as part of a lifestyle, by putting value on mobility as such, regardless of the destination.We will see that some biographical moments triggering mobility are specific to the German or rather the European context.Francis's case, on the other hand, is symptomatic-almost ideal-typical-for the construction of the pattern of cosmobility and provides space for contextual comparisons between other Toronto-based life stories (such as Anja's, ch.3.1) and Montrealbased life stories (such as Oscar's, ch.4.2).Examining these two life stories in depth will shed light on the cosmopolitan experience of mobility and on the differences between it and the two other patterns.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".