A heuristic device, not an actual map… revisiting the urban periphery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are very grateful for Daniel Mullis (2021a, 2021b, 2021c) to have taken up and expanded, but even more for having critiqued our initial paper in this journal on ‘repositioning COVID-19 at the social and spatial per- iphery of urban society’ (Biglieri et al. 2020). The paper was written early in the pandemic and was published barely 2 months after the World Health Organization had declared a global health emergency in the face of the growing COVID-19 outbreak early in 2020. We acknowledge at the outset that we seem to share with Mullis an affinity for the larger debate on the theories of space and urbanization in the context of recent work on planetary urbanization and suburbanization. We agree, in the broadest sense, as Mullis notes with reference to both our common source in Lefebvre’s work and to our own musings about the subject, that centrality and peripherality are ‘produced in and through praxis’ (Mullis 2021a, p. 2). As we will note below, such praxis can be, and often is, more than action, more than momentary agency, but can be seen as a structural condition from which long-term inequalities are being cemented before, in and beyond this current health crisis and future ones to come. So, if centrality is changeable and subject to a ‘dialectical movement that creates of destroys it’ (Lefebvre 2003, p. 116), it is by no means fleeting. It can have staying power. The same can be said about peripheries – social, spatial and institu- tional ones as we have discussed in our previous work and the experience of being on the margins can have long-lasting and hard-to-overcome detrimental effects on oppressed urban communities and on the physical places where they live, work and play.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it