Boundary Work, Overlapping Identities, and Liminality in Communities of Practice: Diplomacy within and beyond ASEAN
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Communities of practice (CoPs) are important sites of social interaction and are of growing concern in international relations. Much attention has been devoted to examining the existence and effect of these communities, and the kinds of practices and identities they coalesce around. Relatively less attention has been afforded to the relations between a CoP and what lies outside of it. In this article we examine encounters at the boundaries of CoPs. Empirically, we examine the boundaries and interactions of a community of diplomatic practice in the context of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as regional officials engage with extra-regional diplomats and “dialogue partners” operating within and alongside the organization. We find that the “boundary work” of these interactions are important sites of social interaction that constitute communities in important ways and make possible meaningful changes in identity and behavior. More broadly, we show that ASEAN’s unique position as a hub of a multilateral architecture that extends to a wider state membership provides prime terrain to inquire about what happens in liminal spaces of encounter between social agents of varied communities. To advance our claims, we draw on sixty-one semi-structured interviews with regional and extra-regional officials in Jakarta and elsewhere in the region, alongside analysis of public statements from diplomatic practitioners.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it