Informal Economies in European and American Cross-border Regions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTInformality is often linked to borderlands in both academic scholarship and political debates. On one hand, border regions are known for the flow of goods, services and labor and, of course, borders represent state attempts to control or regulate these flows. At the same time, scholars of border politics often discuss the weakness of state administrations in border regions where authorities are far from central governments. Despite the clear relevance of informal sectors for borderlands studies, there is a dearth of analysis of this topic in border areas, especially in comparative terms. This article presents a comparative cross-regional study of informality in European (the Eurométropole and Bari, Italy–Durres, Albania) and continental American (San-Diego, USA–Tijuana, Mexico and Cúcuta, Colombia–San Crístobal, Venezuela) cases. It responds to the following research questions: How can we compare informality in cross-border regions? How does informality relate to illegality in these regions? How can regional organizations respond to the social impacts of informality?
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it