MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224323954 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2022.2066012

At the Gates: Borders, National Identity, and Social Media During the “Evros Incident”

2022· article· en· W4224323954 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hara Stratoudaki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopoliticsNational identityTurkishIdentity (music)PoliticsMeaning (existential)Political scienceSocial mediaState (computer science)Media studiesGovernment (linguistics)Focus (optics)Presentation (obstetrics)SociologyLawEpistemologyAestheticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding borders as powerful markers signifying state and nation, this paper seeks to uncover their actual meaning(s) for national identity held by ordinary citizens, as expressed on social media. As a case study, we focus on the “Evros incident,” when some thousands of refugees were attempting to cross the Turkish-Greek border, supported by the Turkish government. Based on Twitter data we propose a methodology to uncover the social and political ground upon which national identity is discussed during critical events, as well as the contents of national identity evidenced in our corpus. Four main topics were found, focusing on popular geopolitics, the borders, the presentation of refugees as “invaders,” and the portrait of “the enemy within.” The finding that Greek national identity is divided, while so far extensively discussed theoretically was not yet empirically documented. Our research not only documents the division, but also exemplifies its contents.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207