Commoning, heterotopia, and transformation: An analytical framework for and from contested spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commoning occurs when people recognize that they share something and develop a sense of mutuality toward each other along with a shared responsibility for whatever they share. Because sharing and mutuality contrast with the individualism, competitiveness, and profit orientation of contemporary capitalist societies, commoning is widely heralded for its transformative potential. Nonetheless, commoning is not inherently transformative. We argue that whether commoning supports transformation depends on its relationship with heterotopic processes. Both commoning and heterotopia-ideal typical "other" spaces characterized by looseness and denormalization-present alternatives to hegemonic norms, especially those of state-centricity, hierarchical social organization, and the prioritization of market relationships and economic growth, but they are distinct processes that do not necessarily coincide. We propose an analytical framework to guide analysis of the relationship between commoning and heterotopia and illustrate it with examples from contested urban green spaces in Liège (Belgium), Montréal (Canada), and Brussels (Belgium).
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".