A beautiful place: Postmigrant trajectories in and around Berlin’s Tempelhofer Feld
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tempelhofer Feld, in Berlin, Germany, is a large urban park located in the south of the city. Returned to the residents as a public green area in the early 2000s, the park has since become increasingly popular. Plans for a development of the area (including turning part of the area into a residential compound) have been consistently met with strong opposition. This paper looks at how regular users (with a background of migration) engage with the park, across a variety of activities and social constellations. Even though, to a casual observer, the park doesn’t seem to offer much more than a flat sequence of grassy lawns and asphalt lanes, there is, among regulars, a strong consensus on the beauty of the place. It’s an experiential (as opposed to contemplative) beauty, that enhances people’s sense of emplacement, of being present in space, as well as their affective entanglement with it. Through their relationship with the park, and among themselves, the research participants reorient themselves as Berlin residents, negotiating and reconfiguring the often narrow confines of their situation as migrants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".