MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1896019265 · doi:10.25071/1920-7336.37502

Technology, Control, and Surveillance in Australia’s Immigration Detention Centres

2013· article· en· W1896019265 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Linda Briskman

Bibliographic record

VenueRefuge Canada s Journal on Refuge · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigration detentionImmigrationGovernment (linguistics)RefugeeControl (management)Human rightsPolitical scienceComputer securityInternet privacyLawCriminologyBusinessSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although mandatory immigration detention for “unauthorized” arrivals in Australia receives considerable attention, the use and abuse by government of technologies within sites of detention is less publicized. Control and surveillance are exercised in a number of ways. Immigration detainees have been denied adequate access to technologies that would enable them to fully communicate with family and friends and are deprived of the capacity to acquire information that can ensure their human rights are realized. At the same time that asylum seekers experience restrictions, devices are in place to control detainees through technological surveillance. Despite the prohibitions and impositions, detainees have adopted alternative means of communication in defi ance of the limits foisted upon them.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRefuge Canada s Journal on RefugeSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207