The Geopolitical Production of Trust Discourses in Finland: Perspectives from the Finnish-Russian Border
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the formation of trust discourses in Finland towards the Finnish-Russian border. The concept of trust has been neglected in previous border studies literature although it is a significant factor in de- and re-bordering processes. Trust is conceptualized as a social practice which derives from actor relations over time. The article investigates the impact of the Ukrainian crisis on Finnish trust perceptions towards Russia and identifies key discourses of trust informing geopolitical knowledge production. The research material consists of newspaper articles and ten semi-structured interviews with Finnish cross-border cooperation actors who operate under the European Neighborhood Instrument (ENI) at the Finnish-Russian border in South and North Karelia. The material is analyzed using a critical geopolitics approach by identifying professional discourses of trust. The research suggests that trust in the local North and South Karelian border regions is based on a complex assemblage of discourses which derive from a geopolitical knowledge production informed by the shared border. This is a continuous practice of various actors negotiating the interlinkage of trust and threat.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".