Perspective Contours of Precarity: A Perspective on Vulnerability and Insecurity in Southeast Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Southeast Asia is experiencing high levels of accumulation, extractive activity, speculation, infrastructural development, and indebtedness. At the same time, state-business-investment agendas regularly downplay issues of marginality and disadvantage. This paper provides a perspective on vulnerability and insecurity in the region. Drawing on observations over a number of years, combined with a review of relevant literature and the use of illustrative examples, it details how and why the concept of precarity is particularly relevant for understanding contemporary forms of jeopardy in Southeast Asia. What follows is the case for a grounded and disaggregated precarity perspective to decipher the less acknowledged forces and interests shaping circumstances we seek to prevent. Rather than relying on limited frames of reference, such an approach can bring greater awareness to localized distress stemming from untrammelled accumulation, speculation, extractive activities, and indebtedness. This conceptual shift is arguably crucial for effectively understanding and mitigating vulnerabilities. If states in Southeast Asia continue to disregard the significance of the interplay between politics, commercial interests, and development agendas in driving ecological degradation, social disadvantage, and marginalization, then the likelihood is a precarious future for many.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".