MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811065915 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2018.1457973

The European<i>Dispositif</i>of Border Control in Malta. Migrants’ Experiences of a Securitized Borderland

2018· article· en· W2811065915 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Léa Lemaire

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuropean unionIrregular migrationPolitical scienceMalteseAccessionGovernment (linguistics)AutonomyEconomyGeographyInternational tradeBusinessEconomic geographyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With its accession to the European Union (EU) in 2004, Malta became a part of a European dispositif of border control. Maltese policy-makers are now charged with preventing migrants from reaching the EU mainland. Malta has thus implemented a mandatory detention policy towards people rescued at sea. When migrants arrive on the island, they are detained in military barracks for a period of up to 18 months. Subsequently, they are released from detention. Some settle in Malta, while others manage to leave the island. This paper combines critical security studies with borderlands studies to examine the construction and reinforcement of a border through social practices and government apparatuses. It explores migrants’ own experiences of what is conceptualized as a securitized borderland. The securitized borderland concept, which simultaneously refers to a space of control, a zone of transit and a place of living, is ambivalent enough to capture the ambiguous situation of migrants in Malta. Empirical data is based on fieldwork carried out in Malta and Brussels, which included observations and interactions with migrants, and interviews with national and European policy-makers, as well as with representatives from international and non-governmental organizations. Finally, this paper offers an ethnography of the social construction of an island-border which epitomizes the concept of a securitized borderland.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207