Same-sex partner immigration and the civil rights frame: A comparative study of Australia, Israel, and the USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As of 2011, only 19 countries around the world grant immigration rights to the foreign same-sex partners of gay and lesbian citizens. Of these, Australia and Israel are two countries that recognize same-sex couples in the immigration system without the recognition of same-sex marriages or civil unions. Since the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits any federal recognition of same-sex unions in the USA, we compare Australia and Israel with the USA in this comparative-historical, cross-sectional study to identify the factors that led to the inclusion of same-sex partners in the immigration systems of Australia and Israel and determine whether these factors are present in the USA. Through secondary data analysis from 1988 to 2000, we find that parliamentary politics, the autonomy of ministers, and access to elite allies in Australia and Israel created a political opportunity structure that was favorable to gay rights activists. Activists then used a civil rights frame, further legitimizing their cause and reducing opposition. Although gay immigrant rights activists in the USA use a similar frame, we conclude that the political opportunity structure of the USA limits successful advocacy for gay immigration equality.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".