Bridge or Iron curtain? Local Hungarian and Ukrainian perceptions of a New European Union Border
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this contribution is to describe the characteristics, intensity and the different forms of cross‐border relations along the Hungarian‐Ukrainian borderline, which became the external border of the European Union on May 1st, 2004. The article does not simply illustrate the current situation, but tries to present the main tendencies of co‐operation after the change of regime in 1990. The study summarizes the effects of the EU enlargement based on the results of questionnaires and interviews completed on both sides of the Hungarian‐Ukrainian border. In the course of research the authors concentrated on the opportunities of transborder connections of the people living near the border, especially focusing on temporal changes of cross‐border traffic and its reasons, the legal and illegal spheres of commercial and other relations that basically determine the subsistence of the people in that region. Furthermore, the authors emphasize the main issues bothering the ethnic Hungarians in Transcarpathia, such as crossing the border or the radical changes of the regulation determining the conditions of residence, learning, employment, etc. in Hungary.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".