Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper traces the initial interaction of the states of South Asia with the formalized international refugee regime, as embodied within the Office of the UNHCR. It explores the debates surrounding the creation of the Office and the 1951 Refugee Convention, and attempts to analyze the disillusionment felt by India and Pakistan with the outcome of these deliberations. Both these states arrived at the United Nations in this period with the burden of hosting up to 14 million Partition refugees weighing heavily on their inexperienced shoulders. Expecting that any international regime created for the relief of refugees would take into account this vast refugee crisis, India and Pakistan were disappointed to realize that cold war politics largely dictated the eventual outcome of the content of the Convention and the mandate of the UNHCR. Fifty years later, neither state has acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention, preferring to interact with UNHCR on a strictly ad hoc basis. This paper argues that many reasons for the hesitancy with which these states approach UNHCR can be traced to their initial understanding of the mandate of the Office.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".