Emergency, Solidarity and Responsibility: The Ethics of Face-to-Face (Border) Encounters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the so-called 2015 Migration Crisis, great attention has been devoted to borders, activism and solidarity. While a part of the literature focuses on the political and/or humanitarian aspects of solidarity, this article suggests reading acts of solidarity through ethics. Looking at the Roya Valley, at the Italo–French border, I suggest that many local initiatives to assist and help migrants in transit were driven mostly by a sense of duty, rather than charity or political motives. The emergence of three specific circumstances – face-to-face encounters, conditions of emergency and a sense of duty – made locals offer solidarity because of a sense of responsibility. Faced with a choice between protecting themselves from legal charges or protecting human lives – those of migrants crossing along their route – or protecting themselves from legal charges, many border-people chose the first option. I, therefore, suggest that solidarity should be read through the prism of ethics. Building upon Levinas’ and Derrida’s ethics, I illustrate why face-to-face encounters make a difference and why response-ability requires impossible decisions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 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".