Rohingya Refugee Movement in Bangladesh: Insiders and Outsiders in Strengthening and Weakening of Borders
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 paper examines the role insiders and outsiders play directly and indirectly in strengthening both territorial and psychological borders. At the same time, it also investigates how they undermine the existing boundaries of difference; in other words, how they weaken borders. This study understands ‘borders’ as both physical and cultural boundaries or visible and invisible boundaries of (re)producing and (re)ordering “us” versus “them” or insiders and outsiders. The conceptual framework developed by Azmeary Ferdoush (2017) has been employed to investigate the role of insiders and outsiders in strengthening and weakening borders. The Rohingya movement to Bangladesh case study is used to examine the paradoxical affects that both insiders and outsiders have on borders. This study aims to contribute the existing literature by explaining how borders are (re)produced and (re)shaped with the interaction of both the insiders and outsiders, with a specific focus on the implications of the refugee movement on border-making. Key Words: Border, Refugee Movement, Rohingya Refugee, Bangladesh.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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