Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many of the core socio-economic, cultural and political issues which have for long, and continue to, afflict the Irish border region, whether directly attributable to or intensified by the conflict, or those that reflect economic imbalances due to geographical factors, do not respect jurisdictional boundaries. Indeed, the varied obstacles associated with the border or issues which are innately cross-border in nature, cannot be effectively addressed by either jurisdiction in isolation from the other. However, while cooperative action on a cross-border basis, based upon partnership towards the mutual exchange of experiences and the pooling of resources, offers potential for the effective achievement of shared objectives, there are also a number of challenges facing cross-border collaboration. This article endeavors to examine the different forms of cross-border co-operation across the Irish border, while evaluating the successes and failures of the approach institutionalized by the 1998 Good Friday/Belfast Agreement. In particular, and reflecting on Anglo-Scottish experiences, it will argue for the importance of systemic capacity-building for the efficacy of cross-border cooperation. The article concludes by emphasizing the increasingly complex nature of cross-border cooperation across the United Kingdom and Ireland, particularly in the light of the impending withdrawal of the UK from membership of the European Union.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".