Incorporating a "Best Interests of the Child" Approach Into Immigration Law and Procedure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
United States immigration law and procedure frequently ignore the plight\nof children directly affected by immigration proceedings. This ignorance\nmeans decision-makers often lack the discretion to protect a child from\npersecution by halting the deportation of a parent, while parents must\nchoose between abandoning their children in a foreign land and risking\nthe torture of their children. United States immigration law\nsystematically fails to consider the best interests of children directly\naffected by immigration proceedings. This failure has resulted in a split\namong the federal circuit courts of appeals regarding whether the\npersecution a child faces may be used to halt the deportation of a parent.\nThe omission of a "best interests of the child" approach in immigration\nlaw and procedure for children who are accompanied by a parent fails to\nprotect foreign national and United States citizen children. Models for\neliminating these protection failures can be found in United States child\nwelfare law and procedure, international law, and the immigration law of\nother nations, such as Canada. Building from these models, the United\nStates must implement and give substantial weight to the best interests of\ndirectly affected children in its immigration law and procedure.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it