The Border as a Humanized Space: (Un)making Territoriality and Spatiality of State Boundary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The classical notion of the border essentially denotes a state boundary as a spatial and territorial entity that connects and separates two states in terms of a physical lineup. However, many scholars believe in its fixity while others point out its mobility. Some think of the border as a vibrant space while others look at it as zones of limited statehood. Some advocate the idea of the border to overcome the social and political division while others sense the border in terms of territoriality to retain the division. Some researchers look upon it as a form of practice terming it “borderscape” while others say the border is a method to understand intersectionality. Some focus on the border as a force for controlling people and goods across borders. Given the background, the paper intends to redefine and retheorize the border proposing an alternative lens to see its humanitarian role in rescuing and saving lives in atrocious and deadly conditions with the case of the Rohingya experience in the Bangladesh-Myanmar border. This paper argues that the border is not only a territorial and spatial entity with strict authority, power and force but also a humanized space for people in atrocious conditions.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".