MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2467930749 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2016.1202775

Protective Barriers and Entrapping Walls: Perceptions of Borders in the Post-Yugoslav Bosnian Diaspora

2016· article· en· W2467930749 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Huttunen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBalkans: History, Politics, Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTampereen Yliopisto
KeywordsPoliticsTemporalitiesBosnianDiasporaArgument (complex analysis)PerceptionSociologyPolitical economyPeriod (music)Political scienceAestheticsGender studiesLawEpistemologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes the violently changing border regime in the ex-Yugoslavian territories, particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the 1990s from the point of view of those who lived through the period of transformation. The focus is on the ways in which local people conceived of the borders during this period and how they describe them in textual form in life-stories and poetry. The impact of both violence and (forced) mobility on imaginaries of borders is analyzed in order to understand how the violent transformation of the border regime affects individuals’ relationship to the political landscape. The central argument is that such periods of change allow us to see the temporalities and process-like character of borders more clearly. In this particular case the perception of borders changes from non-visible to leaky and insecure and finally to entrapping walls between life and death. Border crossing is seen as an act that changes the status of the individual; simultaneously the violent changes in the border regime change the identities of places in dramatic ways. The case highlights the importance of analyzing the effects of rapid political changes to the bordering processes and to the ways in which variously positioned putative border crossers encounter them.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicBalkans: History, Politics, SocietyFrench-language works237,207