Navigating Urban Spaces Through the Use of Interactive Visual Storytelling Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The city of Leeds is a large urban conglomerate in the North of England that embodies the aspects of contemporary development. The social and anthropological organisation of the city are the focus of our interactive visual research. In particular, we focus on the concept of 'borders,' their materiality, and their role within the urban context (Simmel 1997). Thus, Leeds and its social and anthropological issues will become our interactive visual research case study. In particular, the focus of this project will be on the concept of 'walls,' their materiality and their role within the urban context. The term 'walls' is often used to define a large variety of artefacts that create and embody some sort of boundaries. These artefacts often include fences, embankments, roads, and gated communities, structures that divide or enclose spaces. In a psychogeographical gesture, this interactive portrait of Leeds will help to reflect on the extent to which these artefacts could hamper or facilitate the movement of individuals through space. At the same time, this variety of 'walls/boundaries’ become territories themselves. Hence, this visual project aims to be a territorial study of urban barriers. At the same time, it considers the convergence of the cultural, the performative and the socio-political within the city's social fabric. The theoretical framework of our views may be placed within the anthropology of visual communication as conceived by Worth (1981), Ruby (1981, 2005), Canevacci (1997), and Pink (2013). Hence, we undertake an interpretative visual search that stresses communication dynamics and modes of visual representation. Leeds, with its spaces and borders, is narrated through interactive microhistories. This interactive audiovisual portrait highlights whether these artefacts could hamper or facilitate the movement of individuals through space.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".