A borderless region? (Nazi‐)German<i>Westforschung</i>and the German‐Dutch‐Belgian Borderland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on the historical research tradition of Kulturraumforschung (the study of ‘cultural regions') as it was developed in Germany before World War II, and its impact, not only on the Nazi program of border change in the 1930s and 1940s, but also on the contemporary political construction of a ‘de‐bordered’ Euregio Meuse‐Rhine in the German‐Dutch‐Belgian borderland. The paper argues that the profound essentialism of this way of thinking is best replaced by constructivist and actor‐oriented approaches based in the social sciences. Historically, we cannot overlook the impact of the formation of political borders in the 19th and 20th centuries. Political borders institutionalized national territories in the borderlands and promoted the construction of regional identities within a national context. The emerging border studies in geography and anthropology can help historians to develop a non‐essentialist comparative interpretation of cross‐border history in the Meuse‐Rhine Area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".