Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the author gives a brief description of the studies of the borderland from the point of view of anthropology, problematizes the study of memory and identity on the borderland from the point of view of the theory of “places of memory” by P. Nora and the discursive nature of these phenomena. The author analyzes two cases, focusing on the mechanisms of space reinterpretation in order to form a new memory and a new local identity both through the efforts of state actors and through everyday practices. The author comes to the conclusion that successful practices of space reinterpretation are often associated with a radical change in the demographic characteristics of the border region and the implementation of an appropriate consistent policy that synchronizes with everyday practices of the development of this physical and socio-cultural space by local residents. Otherwise, different versions of the memory of the same space among different groups of the border population lead to an aggravation of the conflict potential of their interaction with each other and with central state institutions as they are interested in only one political project.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".