Introductory Note to the Brasilia Declaration on the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons in the Americas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In November 2010, the Brazilian Ministry of Justice hosted the 'International Meeting on Refugee Protection, Statelessness and Mixed Migratory Movements in the Americas' in Brasilia, Brazil. The meeting was intended to mark the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ('UNHCR') and the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and the fiftieth anniversary of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The meeting brought together most of the signatories to the 2004 Mexico Declaration and Plan of Action to Strengthen the International Protection of Refugees in Latin America - a document that seeks to 'strengthen mechanisms for protection and the search for solutions for refugees and other persons in need of protection in the region.' The meeting ultimately resulted in eighteen of the twenty participating nations pledging to improve their efforts to protect refugees and stateless persons in Latin America. On November 11, 2010, this agreement was codified in the Brasilia Declaration on the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons in the Americas. The states that adopted the Brasilia Declaration are: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The United States and Canada participated as observers in the Brasilia international meeting but did not sign and adopt the Declaration.This introductory note briefly describes the regional legal context in which the Brasilia Declaration was adopted, why it is necessary or significant in that respect, and assesses its possible impact on the legal landscape of the Americas in light of the vulnerable populations it aims to protect.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".