MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111758266 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2020.1855228

Bordering Zubara: oil politics, the 1937 Qatari-Bahraini conflict, and the making of a modern Arabian (Persian) Gulf Borderland

2020· article· en· W3111758266 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter Polak-Springer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersianPoliticsGulf warAncient historyPolitical scienceHistoryGeographyLawPhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study of the 1937 Qatari-Bahraini conflict over Zubara is a cultural history of, and border studies approach to, one of the most important border contests of the Gulf during the oil concession era. No scholarship has treated this historical region on the northwest coast of Qatar, which is home to the Fort of Zubara, the nation’s most renowned fortress landmark, and a UNESCO world heritage site, as a borderland. However, this article argues that these sites are the legacy of the 1937 conflict, which more than any previous quarrel over Zubara, led to the development of a political culture of bordering. This article examines the emergence of this bordering in its physical, e.g. customs and border guard regime, and cultural-political, e.g. the building of the Fort of Zubara, aspects. Moreover, it treats the 1937 Zubara conflict as part and parcel of an interwar era of global bordering, making comparative reference to Central European borderlands, in addition to other border studies research, as part of the theoretical and analytical framework. This article aims to contribute to a scant literature on borderlands and bordering processes in the Arabian Gulf.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicHistorical and Contemporary Political DynamicsFrench-language works237,207