MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549022265 · doi:10.1177/016934410402200204

Human Rights in Asylum Sharing and other Human Transfer Agreements

2004· article· en· W1549022265 on OpenAlexaff
Tom C. Clark, François Crépeau

Bibliographic record

VenueNetherlands Quarterly of Human Rights · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsDiscretionDeportationPolitical scienceTreatyState (computer science)International human rights lawLawLaw and economicsFreedom of movementCompliance (psychology)ImmigrationSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article sets out the concept of a State-to-State human transfer agreement of which extradition and deportation are specialised forms. Asylum sharing agreements are other variations which the article explores in more detail. Human transfer agreements always affect at least the right to liberty and the freedom of movement, but other rights will also be at issue to some extent. The article shows how human rights obligations limit State discretion in asylum sharing agreements and considers how past and present asylum sharing arrangements in Europe and North America deal with these limits, if at all. The article suggests changes in the way asylum sharing agreements are drafted: for example, providing for a treaty committee would allow existing agreements to better conform to international human rights instruments and would facilitate State compliance to their human rights obligations.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.027
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNetherlands Quarterly of Human RightsSame topicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207