MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415723569 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2025.2576200

Modalities of Bureaucratic Violence: Bordering via Civil Documentation in Myanmar

2025· article· en· W4415723569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Rhoads, Natalie Brinham, Kathy Win, Nan Tinilar Win

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Geopolitics and Ethnography
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVetenskapsrådetUniversity of East AngliaLeverhulme Trust
KeywordsBureaucracyContext (archaeology)DiscretionDocumentationCitizenshipModalities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines bordering via bureaucratic violence in Myanmar in relation to civil documentation. We categorize bureaucratic encounters into five modalities of bureaucratic violence: deferred citizenship and higher evidentiary burdens; negative discretion in administrative decision-making; denationalization; administrative erasure; and movement restrictions. Since the 2021 military coup, such forms of violence have expanded in terms of geographic scope and application. In the context of armed conflict, forced migration, and upheaval of state structures, bureaucratic violence in the production, circulation, and restriction of documents is employed as a primary bordering technique – with consequences for Rohingya and other religious, ethnic, and political groups.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designQualitative
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 topicAsian Geopolitics and EthnographyFrench-language works237,207