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 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 | 0.000 | 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".