Regulation and Contraband Trade in the Bangladeshi Borderland: Whose Weapons?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents an ethnographic evidence on the informal economic activities of the cattle traders on the border area of Bangladesh surrounding Indian state of West-Bengal. On the basis of fieldwork and in-depth interviews, the article shows how the powerful traders manage to accrue wealth for themselves with the collusion of state officials from the trading activity while the small traders and carriers manage to earn their share of benefit. The study also indicates the paradox of state behavior while regulating the trading activity: on the one hand the state demonstrates its inability to facilitate the trade across the border on the other hand the state is collecting tax from the traders. By drawing on the theoretical debates on informal economy, the analysis demonstrates that the strong presence of the state in regulating the trading activity puts the limit on the maneuvering space of the influential traders while harassment of the small traders by border security forces and increasing death toll of the carriers compromises the position of the weak in this trading site. Therefore, the study argues that the trading activity neither constitutes as a “weapon of the weak” nor as a “weapon of the strong”-rather it reflects an ambiguous character. Second, despite hostile border security environment and absence of any formal regulatory arrangements, the cross-border cattle trade remains efficient, highly organized and deeply rooted business in the border area of Bangladesh.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".