MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112183092 · doi:10.18357/bigr21202019867

The Danish–German Border in Times of COVID-19

2020· article· en· W3112183092 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBorders in Globalization Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanDanishCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Shock (circulatory)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Political scienceNarrativeEconomic historyHistoryGeographyEconomyEconomicsArchaeologyOutbreakBiologyVirologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Danish–German border in the Schleswig region was drawn in 1920. It separated a hitherto economically and socially integrated region, taking into account the right of national self-determination. Since the late 20th century, Danish and German stakeholders have celebrated a narrative of overcoming the border. Thus, it came as a shock to local stakeholders when the border was closed in mid-March 2020 to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The border subsequently reopened in steps with more or less free travel in the summer. Since October, however, new restrictions were imposed as infection numbers began rising in both countries.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.412 · 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