MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408242848 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2025.2475808

Cross-Border Anxiety among Korean Border Commuters at the US–Mexico Border

2025· article· en· W4408242848 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Minjeong Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychosocial Factors Impacting Youth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyEconomic geographyPolitical scienceCross-border cooperationInternational tradePsychologyDemographic economicsGeographyBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on ethnographic fieldwork on the Korean transborder community in the US–Mexico border region, this article examines Korean border commuters’ experiences of border inspections through the lens of cross-border anxiety. Interrogating cross-border anxiety offers insight into the ways in which border inspections require border crossers to surrender to the absolute power of the sovereign state, which can arbitrarily shift the framing of non-citizens from “desirable” to “threat.” By applying Mark B. Salter’s conceptualization of sovereign exceptionalism in borderlands, this article shows how discretionary border performance – border agents’ interactions with border crossers – not only adjudicates border crossers’ entry into the country but also has disciplinary effects on immigrants – both border crossers and those around them. This article extends the current discourse by paying attention to how Korean border crossers and their communities find ways to manage their cross-border anxiety in this context by presenting themselves as docile and obedient subjects or restricting their border-crossing mobility and/or employment opportunities. Furthermore, this article shows how immigrants construct counter-discourses that push back against the state’s framing of them as “undesirable.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.405 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicPsychosocial Factors Impacting YouthFrench-language works237,207