A “New Normal” for the Schengen Area. When, Where and Why Member States Reintroduce Temporary Border Controls?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the reintroduction of temporary border controls in the Schengen Area. The Schengen Borders Code (SBC, Article 25 et seq.) allows signatory states to reinstate temporary border controls in specific circumstances that constitute a serious threat to public policy or internal security either due to foreseeable events (Art. 27), situations that require immediate action (Art. 28) or exceptional circumstances caused by deficiencies at the external border (Art. 29). In response to successive “polycrises”, signatory states have made ample use of this previously rarely-used policy instrument. This article explores the reasons for temporary border controls, their extent and duration, in order to address when, where and why member states reintroduce them. The novel data is based on notifications that Schengen members use to inform the EU Commission about their intent to reintroduce temporary controls at their land borders (1999–2020). The analysis finds that member states expanded the use of temporary border controls in terms of number and duration, as the intended purpose of temporary border controls shifted from the protection of specific events to immigration control.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it