From Hidden Geographies to “Lived, Possible, and Imaginative Geographies”: Making a Just City, for Whom and Where?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuing from a well-received The Professional Geographer Focus section on hidden geographies published in 2023, this sequel invites authors to contribute further to the theme, focusing on hidden geographies in cities. This opening article begins by laying out the context, including recent theoretical turns, a call to shift attention to what makes a just city, contestations of the concept of (social) justice, and calls for inclusive theorization and attention to intersectionality. A search in The Professional Geographer since 1949 generates a lineage of powerful scholarship on social justice and the city, with ethical calls and interventions from marginalized geographers and those from outside the North American centers of the profession. This essay also introduces four article by geographers and urban scholars based on their field work across five continents (on urban ableism in U.S. and European cities, caring for indebted migrant workers in Dubai, infrastructural violence and oppression of low-income fathers in greater Johannesburg, and LGBTQ refugees and queer transnational communities in Buenos Aires). The articles enable a praxis of mainstreaming the “lived, possible, and imaginative geographies” and of what justice, for whom, and where.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it