Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even though it is now established within the field of border studies that bordering experiences vary depending on who you are, a less investigated problem has to do with how differentially border-ed/ing realities and knowledges relate, emerge, and matter. Therefore, this paper unpacks, in dialog with feminist sciences studies, what Sarah Green calls “borderness dynamics” as a cosmos-politics, a complicating ecology of situated knowledges on and of border(ing)s. The argument builds on an ethnographic investigation of the processes through which initially "borderless"” White European volunteers from pro-refugee initiatives in Paris come to sense and know borders in the city as they encounter other border-ed/ing versions of Paris through their practices. The paper demonstrates how these shifts in volunteers’ border sensibilities and knowledges matter ethically and ontologically. The shifts in their (not)knowing/sensing, animated by processes of complication, multiplication, and texturization, contribute to re-shaping what comes to matter as border, as well as to de-re-territorializing the city and its inhabitants as a borderland and as borderlanders. Attending to borderness dynamics enables one to map encounter-induced positionality changes that contribute to “rescaping” at once borders, borderlands, and borderlanders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".