Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jim Hathaways appeal to date rather than marry proposes a separation of the study of convention refugees from that of others who are being forcefully displaced; a separation that we find disappointing and problematic. His determination to prevent the marriage of two sets of potential lovers-forced migrants and convention refugees as well as internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees in flight from war-suggests a puritanical differentiation of identities that belies the potential of a supportive union. The first problem is with definitions themselves. Squeezed into one category of refugees Hathaway confuses two very different categories: convention refugees who in flight from persecution cross a border to claim refugee status and humanitarian refugees who flee across a border because of war and conflict in their homeland. Thus when Hathaway contrasts refugees with the internally displaced the emphasis and central defining characteristic is crossing an international border. According toHathaway refugees are always victims of discrimination are always at risk and are always under the protection of the international community. This assessment simply ignores any distinction between convention and humanitarian refugees: it might fit the former on most occasions the latter on relatively few. Whereas these unlikes (convention and humanitarian refugees) are made likes possible likes (IDPs and refugees) never have anything in common according to Hathaway. (excerpt)
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.010 |
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".