MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995523998 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2019.1700822

Cross-border Commuting Dynamics: Patterns and Driving Forces in the Alpine Macro-region

2019· article· en· W2995523998 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tobias Chilla, Anna Heugel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic geographyMetropolitan areaRegional scienceContext (archaeology)PoliticsUrbanizationGeographyMacroWork (physics)Economic growthPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-border commuting is a spatial phenomenon of rising importance throughout Europe. As one of the most concrete aspects of European integration, it facilitates the use of comparative advantages to live and work on different sides of national borders. But despite a general political appreciation of cross-border integration, neither the statistical knowledge base nor its political implications are very high on the agenda. We explore the cross-border commuting dynamics of the Alpine region on a transnational scale, where seven countries meet and cross-border commuting is a relevant pattern posing daily challenges. Against this background, the paper aims to identify the key drivers and explanatory factors of cross-border commuting. In particular, we explore the role of labor market differences, urbanization, and metropolitan quality as well as the distance to the border. Our investigation is based on regional statistical data mobilized in the context of the Alpine Region Preparatory Action Fund (ARPAF) project on cross-border mobility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.387 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207