Threshold atmospheres: Conjuring the affective in inflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the affective atmospheres of thresholds, which have been overlooked as consumption spaces. We argue that the emphasis on liminality within our field eclipses the related concept of thresholds. In particular, we contend that threshold points of inflection exist not just in the liminal phase but also in preliminal and postliminal phases, extending far beyond the context of any rite of passage. In turning our attention to thresholds, we consider and particularly contribute to understanding their atmospheric qualities and affects. Threshold atmospheres are conceptualised as affective atmospheres generated at or by inflection points – those critical sites and/or moments of significant change or transformation. Four affective qualities of threshold atmospheres are identified and described: modulation, suspension, hauntology, and transformation. Threshold atmospheres modulate affect by shaping our emotional states, priming us for upcoming experiences, and mediating between various realms. They create a suspension or a momentary pause of affect and feelings, amplifying the awareness of the boundary being crossed or the moment of crossing. Threshold atmospheres can be imbued by a spectral hauntological quality, providing glimpses into or a heightened sense of other realms, alternative forms of knowing and being, and a feeling of what might have been and what might yet be. Furthermore, atmospheres of thresholds frequently connect with moments of transformation and transgression. Based on our conceptualisation of threshold atmospheres as a new unit of analysis, several potential future lines of inquiry for marketing and consumer researchers have been proposed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".