Dispossession, Border and Exception in South Asia: An Introduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dispossession can be examined from various vantage points across disciplines. Dispossession is a condition that overturns self-sufficiency by forcing individuals and communities to be dependent. The dependency remains on a "mode of governance and a legal regime that confers and sustains those rights” (Butler 2013, 4). Being dispossessed indicate that the subjects are disowned and degraded by normalising powers active in the society, where the subjects are differentiated. The differentiation is manifested in varied conceptions of development and under-development, of dislocated and "counter-hegemonic subjects." This epistemic distinctions remains the basis for spaces of border formation. However, dispossession is a layered activity that involves multiple actors. It is imperative to unpack layers of dispossession to unravel complex border formation. Thus taking dispossession as the central category of analysis, the contributors in the special issue have examined the complex and layered relationship between dispossession and (b)ordering processes to demonstrate overlapping dominations and subjugations: at (in)security, psycho-social, cultural, political, and economic realms. It attempts to unravel mechanisms of contentious politics of dispossession and the “narratives of encounters” of collective imaginations within a relational framework. In the process, it tries to unfold historical processes and political dynamics of exclusion that constitutes internal and external border practices in acts of dispossession.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".