(De-)Bordering Through Discursive Practices: Ambivalent Narratives on the EU External Border Crises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the narratives surrounding the border crises on the EU’s external border as constructed by the governing political actors in Poland in the period 2021–2023. Drawing on the discourse-historical approach and building on the social construction of a border, it examines the frames, contexts, standpoints, and narrative strategies that have been used to justify (in)hospitable policies toward migrants on both the Polish–Belarusian and Polish–Ukrainian borders. By analyzing the official statements of Polish politicians, ambivalent narratives justifying the securitized border regime and the humanitarian open border were identified. However, both bordering and de-bordering discursive practices were realized through polarization strategies and racialization of people on the move at both borders, portraying them as dehumanized “others” or individualized “our Slavic neighbors.” As such, this article contributes to borderlands studies from the perspective of discursive practices and identifies narrative strategies that can be applied within broader discourse and research on migration and borders in Europe.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".