Transatlantic Graduate Student Workshop (TGSW)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contemporary international politics, numerous ethnopolitical groups (mostly minorities) are faced with national identity problems.1 They do not identify with the nation-state they reside in and endeavor to cultivate their own identity through diverse means. Some aspire for greater autonomy to govern their own affairs (e.g. Some Sami in Finland), while others have a more radical agenda for independence or separation from their nation-state (e.g. some Quebecois in Canada) (Coppieters and Sakwa, 2003: 4). Still there are other communities who currently belong to two political entities and separate states, and desire to integrate on the basis of common identity (e.g. some Basques in France and Spain) (He, 2004: 227-228). This paper begins with a puzzle: what have influenced ethnopolitical groups to advance their national self-determination causes through transnational collective actions or transnational mobilization?2 The impetus of this study derives from the author’s observation that many ethnopolitical groups seem to have not only initiated campaigns directed towards their home countries to express their aspirations, but also, interestingly, using direct or indirect cooperation with international nongovernmental
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".