Summary Conclusions: exclusion from refugee status, expert roundtable, Lisbon, May 2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first day of the Lisbon expert roundtable addressed the question of the exclusion clauses of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, basing the discussion on a background paper by Professor Geoff Gilbert, University of Essex, ‘Current Issues in the Application of the Exclusion Clauses’. In addition, roundtable participants were provided with the UNHCR Guidelines on the Exclusion Clauses and written contributions from the Government of the Netherlands and the Government of Turkey. Subsequently, written contributions were received from government experts of Canada, France, Turkey, and the United Kingdom and will be reflected in the report. Participants included thirty-two experts from twenty-five countries, drawn from governments, NGOs, academia, the judiciary, and the legal profession. Professor Georges Abi-Saab, former Justice of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, moderated the discussion. In view of the limited time available, the discussion focused on those aspects of the background paper and the UNHCR Guidelines that were considered to be in need of clarification. The paragraphs below, while not representing the individual views of each participant or necessarily of UNHCR, reflect broadly the issues emerging from the discussion. General considerations In the wake of the Second World War, the drafters of the Convention contemplated certain types of crime to be so horrendous that they justified the exclusion of the perpetrators from the benefits of refugee status. In this sense, the perpetrators are considered ‘undeserving of refugee protection’. […]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.014 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".