The Regionalism of Borders in Indonesia (Case Study: Sebatik Island, Indonesia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Border management has, on the one hand, grown beyond the conceptual limit that is the terminological definition of borders as lines separating countries to also factor in their development as areas. On the other, it should aim to strengthen state sovereignty and improve the welfare of its citizens. Tese ofen lead to the dichotomy between security and prosperity in border management approaches. Regionalism is an approach used to create regional integration across national borders, but this concept is strongly influenced by the interests of states on each side of the border. Terefore, this research explores if spatial interaction between border communities is controlled by the regionalism concept introduced by the state or, instead, grows organically as part of regionalization due to livelihoods that require border crossings. It used a case study of Sebatik Island in the Indonesia-Malaysia border area. Te qualitative research design applied exploratory principles on the spatial interaction pattern formed between border communities and then synthesized the identified units of information on transboundary activities while considering government-issued policies on border management. Results showed that regionalism was only minimally implemented in managing the border area. It means that border landscapes in Indonesia are organically formed on the micro-scale even though the perspective of regionalism has long been adopted at the regional level, i.e., ASEAN.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".