MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280582273 · doi:10.1386/cjmc_00056_1

Meaning-making strategies on the balcony: The night sky in K. Taha’s Beschreibung einer Krabbenwanderung (‘Portrait of a wandering crab’)

2022· article· en· W4280582273 on OpenAlexaff
Dorothee Leesing

Bibliographic record

VenueCrossings Journal of Migration and Culture · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology, Conservation, and Geographical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiminalitySkyMeaning (existential)PortraitIdentity (music)Relation (database)Space (punctuation)Connection (principal bundle)AestheticsHistorySociologyGeographyArt historyArtComputer scienceEpistemologyMeteorologyPhilosophyLinguisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The meaning-making system of the sky has persisted for millennia (Peters 2015). Yet, many of us do not relate to the importance of the connection with celestial sky anymore. One of the many contributing factors is our relation to urban systems, as well as densification and, consequently, the verticalization of living. As an example of the power of place-making strategies and its friction with the architectural set-up in high-rise mass dwellings and estates, the novel Beschreibung einer Krabbenwanderung by Karosh Taha makes use of the night-time sky in idiosyncratic spaces of the high-rise, such as the balcony. Here, the links between relations of time and space, the here and there (), as well as inside and outside spaces, become apparent and show a connection of the liminality of post-migrant identities. In an analysis of the access to the night-time sky and its concluding place-making strategies by one of the protagonists of the novel, I show how the balcony functions as a liminal space that is idiosyncratic for the mobile and mediatized identity in the western European high-rise dwelling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrossings Journal of Migration and CultureSame topicEcology, Conservation, and Geographical StudiesFrench-language works237,207