Infrastructure and the ethnographic-cartographic production of urban bird species richness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The qualitative bio-geographies of human geographers and the quantitative mappings of biogeographers share a goal: how to understand living with non-human life. Yet they rarely bridge the conceptual and methodological gap between them. This article theorizes how the concept of infrastructure can bridge this ethnographic-cartographic divide. Infrastructure is not just inert shell. It is also a system of relation, a dynamic patterning of socionatural form emerging out of experiences and affective moments of its constituents. As proof of concept, we quantified and compared urban bird species richness and frequency for Tallahassee, Florida over a 17-year period (2000–2017) for two co-occurring observational infrastructures, eBird and a wildlife rehabilitation center that serves the city. Species common to both infrastructures comprised 94% of all eBird observations and 99% of all rehab records. Their differences reflected contrasts in how the motivations for experiencing birds intersected with bird habitat preferences, behavior, and contingencies of urban history and development. eBird observations had a higher species richness (295 spp) and reflected the growing popularity among birds and a small number of active birders for visiting stormwater retention lakes recently modified to improve bird habitat. Rehabilitation records had a lower richness (194 spp) and exhibited a much more even distribution of bird encounters among individual residents as well as community institutions like schools, universities, law enforcement, and other government organizations. Infrastructural perspectives convey how affective and individualistic encounters with the non-human can link to emergent biogeographic mappings and how urban biodiversity is relationally and heterogeneously produced rather than simply contained in cities.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".