MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089263468 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2005.9695643

Bridge or Iron curtain? Local Hungarian and Ukrainian perceptions of a New European Union Border

2005· article· en· W2089263468 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
István Balcsók, László Dancs, Gábor Koncz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUkrainianEuropean unionResizingBridge (graph theory)Political scienceResidenceCross-border cooperationEthnic groupEconomyEconomic geographyGeographySociologyInternational tradeBusinessLawEconomicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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