YOU are invited!! It's not too late to sign up to talk, just send us an email (see below).
Is this an AAG presentation? No, this is not an official AAG presentation but it is a panel session. You will be giving a talk like a 5 minute "lightning talk".
What are you looking for? Stuff that will make this one of your favorite things at AAG or any conference ever. These are research ideas, not 'pitches', app or product ideas. The talks are meant to help us understand something interesting about the universe or to try something new in science.
Can I work on my slides at AAG? Nope, sorry. Organizers will want them a week (hard deadline) in advance to have the combined presentation flow smoothly. We will coordinate with you directly to get them. The slides you send will only be for the presentation and will not be shared elsewhere.
Can I use technical equations, jargon, etc.? Sure, as long is it's very interesting and you think the audience will know what you're talking about.
Why should I speak? If you do not, Grant and Clio will have to each give ten 5-minute talks about their crazy ideas each to fill the time. While they CAN do this, they probably should not.
That said. We expect all participants to be professional and collegial. There may be controversial ideas and differences of opinions. The goal is to celebrate innovation, one another, creativity, and the human mind. (and oxford commas).
Selected Talks (there are more!)
Speakers include: RUI ZHU, DIPTO SARKAR, SONG GAO, KEVIN SPARKS, ALBERT ACEDO, GRANT MCKENZIE, CLIO ANDRIS
The Three-body Problem in Geography
In analogy with the classical Three-body Problem proposed by Leonhard Euler at 1760, this talk proposes potential Three-body Problems in Geography. In physics and astronomy, the Three-body Problem was solved to model the movement of a particle under the gravitational influence of another two that are fixed in space. Similarly, the geospatial question raises as how three, or even more, geographic bodies (e.g., points, lines, and polygons) interact with each other. For instance, a grocery store usually co-locates with both a coffee shop and a pharmacy, and such a spatial pattern results from the interaction among these three locations. In Geography, particularly spatial statistics, we frequently analyze geographic information in a second-order manner (i.e., pairwisely) using the concept of distance (e.g., Moran's I, Semivariogram, Ripley's K and etc.). However, as the grocery-coffee-pharmacy example illustrated, the modeling of simultaneously more than two geographic bodies (i.e., high-order spatial interactions) calls for investigations and new methods. Specific questions that could be discussed and further explored in our community include: (1). do we really need these high-order spatial interactions? And what extra information could we gain by using it? (2) how could we model these high-order spatial interactions? These questions offer us the chance to model and understand geographic phenomenon in a different but more detailed perspective than conventional approaches, thus many geospatial applications could potentially benefit including the mobility and trajectory analysis, network analysis, spatial pattern analysis, geographic field analysis and so on.
A Synecdoche, New York for Designing the Optimal American City?
In 1960s, Athelstan Spilhaus outlined a vision for Minnesota Experimental City, a city planned from scratch that would be designed according to the living and working needs of its citizens and serve as an urban laboratory of sorts for new products, services, and ideas. His proposal eventually failed to gain political traction, however, the notion of urban laboratories remain much alive today (although on a smaller and less radical scale). For this talk I propose exploring the concept of Mimetic Experimental Cities, cities that mimic real cities and exist for the explicit purpose of gaining a better understanding and then designing complex urban systems. Real memetic cities undoubtedly represent the ultimate urban laboratory and would (in theory) allow unprecedented insight to the fundamental question of who gets what where, when, how, and why. However, real memetic cities raise several obvious moral, ethical, and practical issues that simply cannot be ignored. One alternative has been the development of synthetic digital cities that allow for urban experimentation without the high impacts of real-world testing. Nonetheless, this modeling approach also requires extensive data collection that can be highly invasive or fraught with unacceptable levels of bias, uncertainty, or oversimplification. As such, the questions of interest are: What do memetic cities (real or synthetic) have to offer and what does their price say about the quest for a better understanding of cities?
The Cost of Break-Ups
In the late 20th and 21st centuries, the human heart has incurred more romantic break-ups than ever before. Romantic relationships have always endured troubles: harrowing wartime loss, yearlong separations without communication, early death, lost children, and tragedies that many are shielded from today. But the modern rhythm of relationship misadventures is much different thanks to later (and less) marriage, more romantic partners, instant-relationships via online dating and hookups, dual-career couples, and frequent disappearances. As a result, rejection and splitting is a rapid-fire occurrence for the single and the sometimes-coupled. My question is, what is the hidden cost to society of the 'break up'? How many work-hours are lost to break ups? How much unhealthy behavior is perpetuated? How much focus is lost? Do to-do lists freeze up? How much sleep loss, sad and angry feelings, etc. do individuals absorb and recover from? After dozens of break ups, does it get any easier? Movies and songs always talk about romance and its excises, do these things actually help? What resources are available to help? Exercise classes? Books? Support groups? Meet-ups? And can certain people just NOT relate, or are these feelings ubiquitous for other types of loss? This reckless idea is discussed with younger generations in mind, who may be dealing with new roller coasters of relationships, but with the same emotional equipment humans have always had.
Nowadays, people are inhabitants of a globalized world. Increasingly, the geometric relation between home and workplace is not a "reasonable" distance, but about transnational distances, as well as the social relationships. However, we are citizens of at least a country and, surely, all our life will be "affected" by that nationality. Besides the cultural and linguistic concerns, why are we not tackling our rootedness from a more modern geographical perspective? Imagine that we can choose our places from we want to be connected, associated or bonded. Or simpler, you can choose to be a full citizen of each place that you are living throughout your life, although you have just lived there one day. A person, simultaneously, can be from a lake or a church without to be a citizen of this "country", e.g., a multi-geographic proposition based on place-based attachment. What about countries? Imagine that borders disappear, the migration becomes simple mobility, and the VISA is an exhausting out-of-date bureaucracy process. Our taxes are global, the rules are dynamic depending on the number and characteristics of the people linked to each place... In summary, a lovely geographic mess!!
Co-organized by Clio Andris (email@example.com) and Grant McKenzie (firstname.lastname@example.org). Send any questions our way.