MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411236448 · doi:10.1111/ciso.70010

Walking and Perceptions of Danger in Various Cities

2025· article· en· W4411236448 on OpenAlexafffund
Anne Meneley

Bibliographic record

VenueCity & Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPerceptionGeographyTransport engineeringPsychologyEngineeringNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Taking inspiration from Mauss' classic idea of walking as one of many “techniques of the body,” this essay reflects on how perceptions of danger shape how one walks in various cities. I draw on my own research on the limits and possibilities of quantified walking as well as on urban experiences I have had in my life. I reflect on how perceptions of danger can be related at different historical moments: to inclement environmental conditions; to non‐human traffic like motorbikes and cars; and occasionally to global dangers like Covid‐19. Walking and danger can also depend on race, gender, and age, depending on the context. I close with a brief meditation on how protest walking can be mobilized to stand up to a danger that is imposed on one's own community or in support of a danger imposed on a distant, yet vulnerable community.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCity & SocietySame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207