MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094221225 · doi:10.2478/quageo-2014-0017

Small Border Traffic and Cross-Border Tourism Between Poland and the Kaliningrad Oblast of the Russian Federation

2014· article· en· W2094221225 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueQuaestiones Geographicae · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismRecreationGeographyCross-border cooperationQuarter (Canadian coin)Russian federationResizingEconomyCzechPolitical scienceEconomic geographyRegional scienceBusinessInternational tradeEuropean unionArchaeologyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Polish and Russian cross-border cooperation is governed by lawful agreements. The enlargement of the Schengen Area had a significant impact on Kaliningrad Oblast relations and cross-border cooperation with its neighbours. The introduction of visas between Poland and Russia hindered and restricted local border trade which had for years been the only measure mitigating social and economic problems of the cross-border regions. Nevertheless, border traffic between Poland and Kaliningrad grew steadily, to exceed four million in 2012. Poland and Russia, supported by Germany, applied to the EU for small border traffic to cover the entire territory of the Oblast. According to the European Commission, the proposed solution would be a European exception. The agreement on small border traffic came into force on July 27, 2012, covering the entire area of the Kaliningrad Oblast and selected Polish poviats of Pomerania and Warmia-Mazuria voivodeships. Towards the end of the first quarter of 2013, the number of Poles crossing the border showed a rising tendency, and starting from the second through the third quarter of 2013, the number of Russians coming to Poland grew more dynamically. The visits of Kaliningrad residents, apart from commercially oriented ones, also include recreation, tourism, medical tourism visits, etc. Kaliningrad citizens looking for leisure, recreation and entertainment come to participate in great sporting and cultural events in Gdańsk, Sopot and Gdynia. The local self governments of poviats covered by small border traffic noted a clear upturn in the economies and trade of their regions. The development of cross-border cooperation, including small border traffic, has not resulted in attracting a substantial number of Polish tourists to the Kaliningrad Oblast, but it has provided such a possibility. This region is quite expensive for the average Pole. However, as scientists from Kaliningrad projected, with the easing of the visa system and the development of transport and tourist infrastructure the role of tourism shows a growing trend.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.333 · 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