MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065934067 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2012.750950

The Determinants of Open and Closed Borders

2012· article· en· W2065934067 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenness to experienceHuman settlementProbit modelDemocracyVariable (mathematics)Ordered probitProbitEconomic geographyEconomicsPolitical scienceEconometricsGeographyLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why do some states restrict access to citizens from neighboring states? We explain entry restrictions into states by using a theoretical framework that combines the effects of asymmetrical development, democracy, and interstate conflict with a geographic variable that considers interactions based on neighboring urban settlements. We employ passport and visa requirements as a dependent variable. We apply an ordered probit analysis to test our hypotheses about why states open or close their borders to citizens from neighboring states. We also incorporate Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as an analytical tool. The results show that the greater the differential in development between two neighboring states, the less likely the richer state will be open to citizens from its poorer neighbor. The presence of urban settlements, enduring peace, and democracy increase the likelihood of border openness between neighboring states, although international trade has no effect on the degree of openness.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.391 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it