MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558117446 · doi:10.1177/0020881715605417

Continental East–West and Global North–South? Re-imagining (B)orders in Globalization

2013· article· en· W2558117446 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Konrad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobalizationEconomic geographyCredenceSpace (punctuation)Motion (physics)Order (exchange)Perspective (graphical)ColonialismFunction (biology)SociologyAmbiguityGeographyPolitical scienceLinguisticsGeometryLawMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A perspective from border studies imagines an emerging global order based on how an increasing number, extent and intensity of borders, bordering practice and borderlands interact with the forces of globalization. The result of this interaction is an evolving, richly textured and complex layering of global transition in which several processes are apparent with spatial signatures. These are related to and explained by new conceptualizations of borders and an emerging theory of borders in motion. Foremost among the conceptualizations is the notion of shifting: borders and borderlands are not necessarily where they appear to be or where they once were. Another is positioning: imposition and superimposition that creates constantly changing border spaces, bordering practices and border places. Finally, packing develops intensities of border function and articulates variable border production. These conceptualizations of borders in motion offer a new credence and framework of inherited and enhanced territorial differentiation and compilation, which elevates the discourse beyond cardinality, colonialism and continentality, interrogates these ingrained notions, and suggests that the world is indeed evolved and evolving (b)ordered space.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.037
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational StudiesSame topicCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207