Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article sketches the dominant themes that have shaped Dutch discourse, policy and research on issues related to race, ethnicity, and immigration during the past 40 years. It will be shown that the paradigmatic foundations of Dutch minority research were laid in the 1980s and that mainstream research and discourse is largely about ethnic minorities; about their migration and their degree (or lack) of economic, social and political integration in the Netherlands. By (co)incident or design, ethnic minorities – invariably called allochtonen, a Dutch word for non-natives or aliens, irrespective of citizenship – are problematized, while mainstream research generally downplays the ramifications of the colonial history, and concomitant presuppositions of European (Dutch) cultural superiority. We present an extended discussion of the denial of racism and the de-legitimization of racism research. Common sense (notions of) racism profoundly shaped research interpretations and research agendas. Mainstream researchers and scholars are largely critical of antiimmigrant discourse, but with the silencing of race critical paradigms there are few concepts and frameworks left to analyze and contextualize which anti-immigrant sentiments and policies are historically rooted in the invention of race and the Other and which sentiments are fears, discomforts and insecurities resulting from the uncontrollable paradigms of globalization in a world that has become smaller.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it