MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040856277 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2013.862758

Somali Asylum Seekers and <i>Refoulement</i> at the Kenya–Somalia Border

2013· article· en· W2040856277 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rose Jaji

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSomaliRefugeeKenyaContext (archaeology)Political sciencePoliticsBorder SecurityHuman securityEthnic groupPolitical economyDevelopment economicsSociologyEconomic growthLawGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asylum seekers in Africa, just as across the world, have not been spared from the politics of cross-border migration which has become more contentious in contemporary times. This is due to the prevailing security, economic, and cultural concerns that have seen migrants who bear certain racial, ethnic, national, and religious identities facing physical and legal barriers erected to curb their inflow. This paper argues that despite the general tendency in global political discourses to treat Africa as a monolithic entity, cross-border migration is equally contentious in Africa as it is in other parts of the world and is also connected to current global and regional politics in relation to local, context-specific concerns. The paper focuses on the forced return of Somali asylum seekers to Somalia by Kenyan authorities in January 2007 and is framed within the context of broader research conducted from 2006–2007 and in 2012 on refugees self-settled in Nairobi, Kenya.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207