The power of materiality: Local orders, interaction and global governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the power of materiality in the context of refugee camps, demonstrating how local orders and global governance are intricately interwoven within the material domain. It draws on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in Burmese refugee camps in Thailand to illustrate how sociomateriality can establish spaces of exclusion and associated memberships through their practical implementation, but at the same time permit flexible forms of local manifestations. These aspects represent the tangible realities that people, both ordinary camp residents and local authorities, navigate and achieve in their local public camp life. By means of detailed observation of three distinct camp situations—namely, interactions of membership, checkpoint practices, and the temporary suspension of public camp life—the article argues that mundane sociomaterial practices can both produce and undermine the political intentions of architects to realize materialities of exclusion. Nevertheless, despite their partial and incomplete nature and the capacity of people to circumvent them, the materiality of exclusion is maintained and persists. By elucidating these dynamics, the article contributes to the existing literature that emphasizes the importance of understanding camp governance through the lens of sociomateriality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".