Cashable Value: Social Capital and Practical Habits in the Analysis of Collaborative Cross-Border Economic Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today’s climate of heightened border security has intensified a key challenge found on border regions: coordination across institutional regimes. For 30 years or more a popular concept for explaining groups’ abilities to handle such challenges has been social capital and its variants, such as collective efficacy. While in many respects useful, these concepts are hindered in their explanatory power due to the lack of precision in their definition and a misplaced analogy of group capacities to capital stocks. This paper therefore takes a dissenting view from the special issue’s premise that questions of cross-border collaboration are fully amenable to a social capital-based framework. Rather, it aims to contribute to the borderlands studies research community’s tools for moving beyond some widely-acknowledged limitations to social capital frameworks by introducing complementary concepts and methods that emerge from an historical ethnography of two US-Mexico border city pairs whose economic fortunes diverged after the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Although capital stocks cannot account for this divergence, local practices and habits of business and political elites’ policy implementation do, suggesting that researchers interested in these topics need to broaden their methods and concepts to help deal with the contradictory challenges of liberalized commerce and heightened security that today’s border regions face.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".