“Citizens without Borders”?: Discussions of Transnationalism and Forced Migrants at the Ninth Conference of the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration, São Paulo, Brazil, January 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significance of transnational perspectives at the ninth conference of the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration (IASFM) marks a key change in the development of work on both forced migration and migrant transnationalism. A transnational perspective highlights significant policy interventions that can be made in the search for durable solutions to refugee displacement; most significantly, recognizing that a refugee’s community may be spread on a global scale, yet is nonetheless significant in supporting their own efforts to overcome the difficulties of their situation. It is equally important, however, to recognize that transnational activites do not always support pluralistic solutions to conflict. The transnational engagements of forced migrants also challenge a number of assumptions of existing transnational perspectives by directing attention to forms of exchanges and communication that do not necessariy involve the movements of people. Interest in transnational activities is currently concentrated amongst researchers working in the wealthier countries of the global North. Further work may determine if alternative perspectives are more appropriate for research based in the South.
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 | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".