From Post-Modern Visions to Multi-Scale Study of Bordering : Recent Trends in European Study of Borders and Border Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent decades have witnessed a remarkable rise in academic research and political discussion on borders and border regions. In broad terms, we can distinguish at least two major traditions which have developed more or less in parallel directions and in increasing interaction with one another. There is the older American tradition of “borderlands studies” that has gained new ground and forms today an established academic institution around the scholarly organization Association of Borderlands Studies (ABS) with its regular conferences and publications, most notably the Journal of Borderlands Studies (JBS). In this review I will concentrate on the more novel European based research tradition which has partly gained inspiration from the American scholarly discussion and partly opened new research directions, with certain influence on the broader international research community. This tradition is perhaps best known through the series of Border Regions in Transition (BRIT) conferences and the publications linked to them. Since the first gathering in Berlin in 1994, there have been ten BRIT conferences organized in Finland, the U.S., India, Estonia, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Canada and Chile. Its activities have gathered together scholars from around the world, from Europe and the Americas as well as from Asian countries. In my analysis on the recent trends in border studies I will concentrate mainly in reflecting on the publications of BRIT conferences. As in the U.S., also the European conference and publication activities have led to more challenging institutional forms. Members of the BRIT network have carried out several national and international research projects including large-scale projects of the European Union Framework program for research such as Lines of Exclusion as Arenas of Co-operation (EXLINEA) and Local Dimensions of a Wider European Neighbourhood (EUDIMENSIONS). In addition, new research units and Centres have been established both in the European Union and outside, e.g. Finland, the Netherlands, the UK, Canada, India, Israel and recently even Japan. A special kind of
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".