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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles R. Boehmer, Sergio Peña

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207