Boundaries and Corridors: Rethinking the Canada-United States Border-Lands in the Post-9/11
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I. INTRODUCTION After September 11, 2001, the boundary between Canada and the United States became more apparent. The boundary line itself did not change, but crossing the border became more protracted, less civil and generally more complex. This development reflected the fact that September 11 both accelerated developing technobased management strategies, and redirected existing border security programs. Cross-border movements, including trade, human migration and information flow, continued and grew, yet the focus shifted. On the border with Mexico, the shift was from stopping drugs, contraband and illegal immigrants to insuring national security. The U.S. was now at war with terrorism. On the United States border with Canada, the shift to national security implied a greater change for Canada than Mexico because the United States and Canada had evolved a relaxed border crossing relationship on the world's longest undefended border. Cross-border regionalism contributed to the evolution of the effective and benign exchange between boundary cooperation and identity helped to sustain cross-border movement after 9/11. The nature of the Canada-U.S. boundary, and the functions of the cross-border regions, appear to have been transformed during this crisis. This apparent transformation is explored in this paper. Cross-border regionalism is shared perception and use of an area, often with similar landscape characteristics, which result in mutual benefit and cooperation across the geographical regions that emerge from a sustained process of cross-border regional interaction. In our view, economic, social and cultural components of cross-border regions prevail when cross-border regionalism is strong. However, we do acknowledge the indelible political borderline, its constant presence, and its propensity to re-emerge with tremendous speed and vigor, periodically, and in response to external threat and internal political pressure. Cross-border regionalism is by its very nature both an ameliorative and a divisive process, for it brings together distinct nations and divides common interests. Add to these forces the impact of external events, and the erosive and depositional effects of time, and the cross-border region evident today may show only a resemblance to the borderlands apparent in previous decades. In this paper we explore how cross-border regions operate between Canada and the United States, and how their functions have changed in recent years. (1) In the post 9/11 period two apparently opposing yet fundamentally integrated forces are emphasized. One is the entrenchment of the boundary. In a sense, the wall between the United States and Canada became higher and less permeable when homeland security became a major issue in the United States. Yet, as the border was reinforced, corridors of commodity flow and interaction were expedited. Technological improvements, gateway acceleration, crossing-point staff enhancement and other enabling measures developed rapidly within cross-border regional contexts. Specific cross-border regional approaches to interaction across the boundary were fundamental to re-articulating and expediting Canada-U.S. trade and migration. Our road map to understanding cross-border regionalism in the post-9/11 era begins by situating the borderlands in the NAFTA-September 11 transition. NAFTA focused the vaguely defined borderland communities and regions between the United States and Canada. Under NAFTA, cross-border regions became distinct corridors and places of articulation between the national economies. Section II of the paper explores this notion along the extensive boundary, and evaluates the NAFTA effects of transportation, trade and regulation on border crossing and borderlands function. After 9/11, the United States' focus on homeland security has recast these cross-border regions as sub-national theatres of security implementation. Section III offers a snapshot of the state of the borderlands in the post-9/11 era. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,029 | 0,019 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».