Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of the world’s refugees have secured a legal status without resort to an individual examination of their claims. The practice of “group” determination, particularly in Africa, is interesting in several aspects, not least in that it allows a real-time assessment of a need for international protection. While these positive aspects should not be lost as many jurisdictions in the developing world are equipping themselves with individual asylum procedures, it is equally important to clarify, and hopefully to harmonize, the procedural and evidentiary standards applicable to group determination. How presumptions operate—including their rebuttal or removal—is a question worth examining, and not only with regard to refugee status determination (RSD) in mass influx situations. Legal presumptions and other evidentiary shortcuts have also been introduced into individual RSD procedures in industrialized states. These include mechanisms that are highly problematic from a protection point of view, such as the “safe country of origin” presumption of a “manifestly unfounded” claim. However, administrative bodies and courts have also, from time to time, used some form of prima facie admission of evidence in order to lighten the burden of asylum applicants, while speeding up the RSD process. Furthermore, this article argues that extralegal presumptions, based on implicit value judgments about national or subnational groups, almost invariably colour the interviewing and decision-making processes in individual cases. Th is finding makes it all the more necessary : to (i) to re-assess the signifi cance of “risk-group affi liation” as an element of the refugee defi nition; and (ii) formally recognize the role of evidentiary shortcuts in RSD, and recommend appropriate standards for their operation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".