Borderscapes Inside Out: New Transdisciplinary Methodological Horizons for Critical Border Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In critical border studies, interdisciplinary approaches are often stressed as pivotal analytical perspectives for obtaining a comprehensive understanding of borderscaping dynamics. However, the substantial contributions in this direction made by social sciences, humanities, and border studies are often limited to a theoretical and conceptual layer. The increasingly mobile, de/re/territorialized, and processual dimensions of contemporary borders require an additional step. We are still lacking adequate transdisciplinary methodological instruments to operationalize our theoretical knowledge of the complexity of b/ordering processes. What functional tactics could be used to address this necessity? This article suggests that (re)conceiving the border not only as a subject but also as a transdisciplinary method is the epistemic frame through which to answer this question. Specifically, we discuss the design of our participatory action-research within the BorderArt(E)Scapes project as a tool for developing new applied transdisciplinary research methodologies that enhance the dialogue between anthropological, artistic, art-historical, and educational perspectives.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".