MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1772188659 · doi:10.25071/1920-7336.22074

The Temporary Safe Haven- An Australian Perspective

2001· article· en· W1772188659 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jackie King

Bibliographic record

VenueRefuge Canada s Journal on Refuge · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationLegislatureGovernment (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Political scienceDenialRefugeeHavenSafe havenPublic administrationService (business)Perspective (graphical)Service delivery frameworkAction (physics)LawBusinessPublic relationsLaw and economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Australia's decision to provide temporary safe haven protection to 4000 Kosovars in response to the UNHCR request for assistance in their humanitarian evacuation from refugee camps in surrounding countries, required quick action by the government to provide for an unprecedented legislative and service delivery framework. This paper looks at the notion of temporary protection, both in international and specifically Australian context, before describing and assessing the legislative and service delivery mechanisms that facilitated Australia's response. This paper concludes that the risk of selective intepretation of the legislation and the denial of democratic rights to the subjects of legislation, and the less than adequate service delivery to the Kosovars, and the arguable breach of its international obligations, suggests that Australia will have to think twice before engaging in such a mechanism in the future.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRefuge Canada s Journal on RefugeSame topicPeacebuilding and International SecurityFrench-language works237,207