Borders Transformed: Sovereign Concerns, Population Movements and the Making of Territorial Frontiers in Hong Kong, 1949-1967
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borders play a critical role in shaping our understanding of refugees. Under the modern refugee regime, people must move across international borders to obtain asylum. Borders are increasingly identified as sites of contestation; this article explores how refugees are fundamentally constitutive of modern borders regimes as states react to the movement of people with a variety of exclusionary mechanisms that, in turn, affect how those in motion are perceived. The evolving politics surrounding territorial borders between Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from 1949 to 1967 illustrate how closing borders in the face of migrant mobility affected contemporary conceptions of refugees and the related possibility of obtaining refugee status. These critical years, spanning the victory of the Chinese Communist Party and the spread of the Cultural Revolution to Hong Kong, saw major shifts in the government of Hong Kong’s approach to its borders with the PRC. As a result of controls introduced by British colonial authorities, Hong Kong’s border zones changed from historically open spaces of free movement to highly restrictive and militarized barriers. At the same time, the possibility of refugeehood for migrants from the PRC vanished almost entirely. The impact of border controls imposed by colonial authorities in Hong Kong was so great that the fluid nature of migration into the colony was lost in discussions of sovereignty and illegality that sought to categorize migrants into distinct streams for the purpose of inhibiting entry.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".