Russian – Norwegian Borderlands: Three Facets of Geopolitics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to explore a paradoxical co-existence of various forms and models of trans-border interactions in areas of direct adjacency of Norway and Russia. Our main hypothesis is that the structural conditions of securitization that became dominant in NATO-Russia relations after the annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbas produce different effects all across the borderline, directly affecting borderland communities, including mobility, connectivity and public security. As our key point, we posit that the geopolitical conflictuality and the ensuing gaps and ruptures in military security are not automatically projected onto the level of “low” / grass-roots / local politics where there exists a public demand for expanding the existing spaces of interaction in such fields as cultural exchanges, environmental protection and people-to-people contacts. Apparently, the geopolitical divides are more visible and easily identifiable through the mainstream media, while other layers need a different optics allowing to spot various regimes of border functioning and peer into the complex construction of borders, where geopolitical divisions and partitions are counter-balanced by sub-national activities and initiatives discarding the logic of geopolitical conflict and alternating it with the grass-roots public / cultural diplomacy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".