A Story behind the Map: The Strange Life of Maps and Their Makers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are maps that do not attract attention at first glance; they do not show sensational discoveries, nor are they equipped with impressive cartouches. What makes them important is the story behind them. The article presents a case study of a manuscript map of the Huayabamba Valley (Peru), from 1913, which is kept in the Royal Geographical Society’s Collection. Created on the basis of a Peruvian American expedition, this map hides three exceptional stories. The first one refers to what the cartographer unexpectedly mapped, while the other two reveal how strange the circulation and consumption of a map can be. In the analysis of the map, an innovative processual approach was applied, in which mapping is understood as a process consisting of three equally important phases: production, circulation and consumption, thus investigating participants involved, purpose of mapping, places (the physical sites of maps’ circulation), and practices (strategies and techniques). The post-colonial nature of geographical knowledge and the role of indigenous intermediaries are particularly considered. In this regard, the article offers an example of alternative readings of the map within complex relationships between society, personal history, local conditions, and the holding institutions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".