MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411984291 · doi:10.4000/149v5

Andreas Rutkauskas’s Borderline Project: an Intermedial Mapping of the Canadian-American Border

2025· article· en· W4411984291 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gwen Cressman

Bibliographic record

VenuePolysèmes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is concerned with the intermedial rewriting of the Canada-U.S. border active in Andreas Rutkauskas’s online Borderline project. In Borderline, the photographer embeds his combinations of short texts and photographs of various border locations within Google mapping tools such as Google Maps or Google Earth, depending on the interface one chooses. The intermedial confrontation of digital mapping with the photographs and associated texts in Andreas Rutkauskas’s Borderline project invites its viewers to explore visually the line between Canada and the U.S. The border which the viewer is invited to travel along takes on infinite guises, sometimes confirming hard-border imaginaries of barriers and border posts but mostly delivering idiomatic glimpses into a border that never ceases to surprise us in its porosity, impermanence and complexities. Beyond the abstract and vertical gaze active at the border and its divisive politics, Rutkauskas’s combinations of texts and images produce knowledge about the lived border in its banal and contested forms. If Borderline undoes the map of the border, as such it constitutes an invitation not only to explore but to perform the border in a countermapping performance which at once confirms and erases the border in its technological guises and offers to decolonize the map and our imaginaries.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.318 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolysèmesSame topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207