Challenging Borders: Contingencies and Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In June 2019, a group of people assembled in Lethbridge, Canada, for a conference titled "The Line Crossed Us: New Directions in Critical Border Studies." Many were based in the United States, and several more had travelled from overseas.Little could any of us have known that less than a year later, governments around the world would abruptly close their borders in response to a global pandemic, one that put an indefinite end to face-to-face gatherings of the sort from which this volume evolved.Seldom had the power of borders to separate been thrown into such high relief.The conference that would soon seem so impossible originated in an email that Sheila had sent to Julie and Paul the previous year, welcoming two new border researchers to the University of Lethbridge and inviting us for coffee and a chat.We bonded around a sense that the broader field of critical border studies was ready for more transnational and transdisciplinary comparisons and collaborations where artists, activists, and academics work together to challenge border regimes.The Lethbridge Border Studies Group was born.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".