Deep mapping cartography's limits: the artfulness of rendering spatial practice
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
Cartesian cartographies, writes Michel de Certeau (1984), make action legible by substituting trace for practice; alas, the "gnostic drive" (92) to capture everyday navigations "causes a way of being in the world to be forgotten" (97).Deep mapping (see McLucas 2000;Biggs 2010;Bissell and Overend 2015;Roberts 2016;Modeen and Biggs 2020) resists preemptive definition for it is through its practice that deep mapping becomes articulated as an apparatus of investigation.For me, deep mapping is situated, embodied inhabitation as a practice of ongoing and open-ended dialogue with the world.Deep mapping does not render down to a map in the sense of a Cartesian cartography, yet neither does it "counter cartography".Deep mapping is not defined through opposition so much as marked by iterative acts of interference with hegemonic forms of representing place, producing geographic knowledge, and rendering spatial research public.How might we render situated spatial practices like deep mapping without flattening, georeferencing, and vectorizing experiential knowledge?If mapping itself is taken to be a mode of immanent inquiry (Knight 2021), how might theorizations developed through spatial practice be recorded while centering the generativity of cartographic process?
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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