Inhabiting research through lived practice: A humanistic response to north–south ontological locationalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing from my lived experiences as a scholar-practitioner navigating north–south binaries, this commentary offers a humanistic response to Narayanan's (2025) Ontological Locationalities. Emphasising the significance of embodied knowledge, relationality, and everyday rhythms, I mobilise the conceptual frames of Henri Lefebvre's rhythmanalysis and Cindy Katz's idea of minor theory to invoke how a humanistic lens values biographical antecedents, emotions and affect, and the ways in which these entwine with the urban environment as the fertile grounds for urban research and planning practice. It is therefore not just where research questions arise but how these questions begin to be asked that also matter, with a conscious attentiveness towards the affective and material realities of place-making. In so doing, I offer humanistic urbanism as a complement in shaping the conversation around the need for pluriversalities as advanced by Narayanan (2025), where research is part of a lived practice sensitive to bio-spatialities, dwelling, situatedness, histories and multiplicities of the places explored. By inhabiting research, the humanistic perspective offers a challenging yet necessary pathway towards fostering inclusive and compassionate urban futures.
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 | 0.054 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.191 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| 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".