MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316036794 · doi:10.3138/cart-2021-0024

Mapping Intimate Geographies of Grief and Loss

2022· article· en· W4316036794 on OpenAlexaffvenue
José Alavez

Bibliographic record

VenueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefContext (archaeology)SensibilityDimension (graph theory)Experiential learningCartographySociologyHistoryGeographyPsychologyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cartography has been pivotal in making visible the number of people who die in the context of migration. In this article, the author explores the potential of mapping to study and develop another dimension of the geography of death within exile: the more intimate dimensions of post-mortem geographies as experienced by those who survive a loved one. Inspired by Avril Maddrell’s call for developing new cartographic representations to share difficult emotions and memories associated with death, the author mobilized two alternative mapping practices—inductive visualization and sensibility mapping—to chart the emotional and intimate geographies embedded in the stories of two migrants who lost a close friend with whom they lived while in exile. The mapping process that led the author to represent these intimate post-mortem geographies brought me to reflect on the importance of developing alternative cartographic forms of expression that focus on the experiential and the emotional, rather than on the factual and the measurable. By steering this cartographic shift away from the fact of death as the end of a journey to death as a lingering event in the life of those who survive, the author proposes a cartography of grief and mourning that aims to contribute to individual and collective remembering.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and GeovisualizationSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207