European Border Region Studies in Times of Borderization: Overview of the Problem and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since at least the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, the role of borders could no longer be overlooked. This global development has also penetrated the European border regions along with the virus. There, European border region studies is now confronted with events that it has thus far hardly had to deal with. This article addresses such events and elaborates on the interplay of borderization and deborderization processes in the context of “covidfencing”. For this purpose, social negotiation processes of border closures in the Greater Region SaarLorLux and in the German–Polish border area are discussed as “people’s resilience”. This article considers how European border region studies can deal with events and questions in times of borderization. Drawing on international border studies, the research agenda can be extended to everyday cultural issues. In addition, the common concept of borders can be adjusted in order to make the border more accessible as a subject of everyday cultural negotiations. Keywords: COVID-19, covidfencing, border, borderization, deborderization, cross-border commuters, border studies, everyday culture, bordering, resilience.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".