MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385833113 · doi:10.1017/9781911116844.015

Globalisation: What Does It Mean for Geography? (2002)

2018· other· en· W4385833113 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobalization and Cultural Identity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobalizationEconomic geographyGeographyRegional scienceEconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let me begin, briefly, with two observations which provoke geographical reflection: the first concerns governments in the UK and USA (and lots more besides) who tell us that ‘globalisation’ is inevitable. (They really mean globalisation in its current form – which is to say ‘neoliberal’.) They tell us it is the only possible future. And if you point to Nicaragua, Mali and Mozambique, which do not yet seem to be part of this future, they will tell you that such countries are just ‘behind’ and that eventually they will follow along the path which we have led. Perhaps my favourite example of this came in 1998 when Bill Clinton delivered himself of the reflection that we can no more resist the current forces of globalisation than we can resist the force of gravity. We might note in passing that this comes from a man who spends his life flying about in aeroplanes and thus quite effectively resisting the force of gravity! But, more seriously, of course globalisation is not a force of nature. It is a product of society – a political and economic project which requires the mighty efforts of the World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund, United States of America, multi-national corporations, World Bank, etc., to push it forward. The aim of Clinton’s statement is to persuade us that there is no alternative. This is not a description of the world as it is, so much as an image in which the world is being made. Now, many criticisms can be made of this formulation, but I want to focus on one thing – that within Clinton’s statement is a kind of sleight of hand in terms of how we think about space and time. When we ask about Mozambique and the answer is that that country is just ‘backward’, what is really at issue is a denial of Mozambique’s difference from us – or at least a reduction of that difference merely to the fact that Mozambique is ‘behind’ us in development. Co-existing difference is reduced to place in the historical queue. Effectively this is turning geography into history – space into time.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.014
Scholarly communication0.0160.018
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobalization and Cultural IdentityFrench-language works237,207