MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214388853 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2021.1996260

A “New Normal” for the Schengen Area. When, Where and Why Member States Reintroduce Temporary Border Controls?

2021· article· en· W3214388853 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fabian Gülzau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMember statesCommissionPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)ImmigrationInternational tradeIllegal immigrationAction (physics)European commissionControl (management)European unionLawBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicEuropean Union Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207