MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392753096 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2024.2321591

Between Narratives of Solidarity and Othering in Indo-Tibetan Borderlands: Local Resistance to Tibetan Refugee Rehabilitation in Arunachal Pradesh

2024· article· en· W4392753096 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. K. Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSouth Asian Studies and Conflicts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolidarityRefugeeNarrativeResistance (ecology)Gender studiesRehabilitationPolitical scienceEthnologySociologyGeographyHistoryPsychologyArchaeologyArtPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tibetan refugee rehabilitation in Arunachal Pradesh, India, has become a site of contention, with strident local identity narratives agitating against refugee presence in this Himalayan borderland state. This paper maps the processes of state-making, citizenship and identity that produce a collision between encompassing notions of citizenship/identity and territorialized discourses of belonging premised on ethnicity in the West Kameng and Tawang districts of Arunachal. This is a multi-factoral analysis of how pressures of land commoditization and competition for economic opportunity interact with religious solidarities and social histories of migration to produce simultaneous narratives of belonging and othering between the dominant local Monpa Buddhist community and the exiled Tibetans in Monyul in the Indo-Tibetan borderland. The post-colonial state’s failure to dismantle the ethnicity-based colonial spatial order in the Himalayan region has created a crisis of exclusionary ethnopolitics that is inherently hostile to refugees.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.020
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicSouth Asian Studies and ConflictsFrench-language works237,207