Chapter Six Thick Borders and the Challenge of North American Policy Coordination Post-Bush: What's Next ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From June 2009, every Canadian who enters the United States must have a passport or an equivalent document. This regulation will transform the once permeable, undefended, and easily traversed border for day trips into a high-security crossing point. The perception that the border has been thickened irreversibly post-9/11 has much truth to it. But, in fact, North America’s borders have been thick regulatory gates since World War II. Borders are fixed by law and geography and changed by circumstances and need.2 This combination of inflexibility and adaptation precisely describes the far-reaching transformation of the world’s many borders since 9/11 including the great northern border between Canada and the United States. Theoretically, borders have always been very complex places for security, citizenship, and the regulation of public health, the environment, and food safety—all at least partially exogenous forces.3 While countries prize these areas as spheres of sovereign competence, they will negotiate and share responsibility for health, the environment, immigration, and citizenship with other states when the need arises. Cross-border cooperation has grown immensely in the past 20–30 years almost everywhere except in high conflict zones of war and insurgency—with little or no NAFTA impulse. It was a misconception that NAFTA would render the border an element of the past and dismantle its security and sovereignty-enhancing character. The Canada-U.S. border has always been a bureaucratic mixture of thick and thin, but what is dramatically new and highly visible today is that Canada and the United States developed parallel security policies following the passage into law of the omnibus U.S. Homeland Security legislation following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Policing,
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".