Bibliographic record
Abstract
What can the border wall tell us about the end of the world? As anthropogenic violence fastens its grip, border walls have been increasingly flaunted as a way to mitigate fears about viral, ecological, and human invasion in the name of climate security. The paper suggests that border walls help stage investments in the end of the world that are steeped in a kind of anthropogenic “impasse of the present,” (Berlant, Lauren. 2011. Cruel Optimism. Durham: Duke University Press) while framing collective imaginaries about the future. Such walls visually perform an erroneous form of sovereignty that rescripts biopolitical continuity through the fantasy of hegemonic death and simultaneously shield their proprietors from the violent conditions of their own susceptible safety. The paper unpacks these tensions in terms of the entanglement between world ending fantasies, the affective modalities of walling and the continuation of colonial violence. Articulating precisely those defenses and openings that project what kinds of “worlds” and “ends” are imaginable in the first place, the wall as a material and symbolic medium gives form to apocalyptic anxieties as they leak into dominant cultural imaginaries and thereby helps to think through the links between crisis, security, and visual culture.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".