Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers visiting the Headquarters of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Geneva will frequently encounter discussions about efforts to develop ‘global refugee policy’. These efforts may relate to changes to existing UNHCR programmes, such as its approach to refugees in urban areas, or to new areas of activity, such as the organization’s response to displacement resulting from natural disasters. These efforts become ‘refugee policy’ when they result in a formal statement of a problem relating to protection, solutions or assistance for refugees or other populations of concern to the global refugee regime and a proposed course of action to respond to that problem. According to Soroos (1990: 318), this policy is ‘global’ when it takes the form of ‘either regulations that define the limits of permissible behavior for national governments and those under their jurisdiction or, alternatively, as programs administered by international agencies,’ such as UNHCR. UNHCR, states and NGOs invest considerable time and resources to develop, adopt and implement global refugee policy. Since 2007, for example, UNHCR has adopted new policies on: age, gender and diversity (UNHCR 2011); statelessness (UNHCR 2010); protection and solutions in urban areas (UNHCR 2009a); displacement resulting from natural disasters (UNHCR 2009b); return and reintegration (UNHCR 2008); and internal displacement (UNHCR 2007). This is in addition to Conclusions adopted by UNHCR’s Executive Committee (ExCom) on refugees with disabilities (2010), protracted refugee situations (2009) and refugee children at risk (2007), all of which constitute global refugee policy. Other notable examples of global refugee policy include the 2002 Agenda for Protection and UNHCR’s policies on older refugees (2000), refugee children (1993) and refugee women (1990).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.002 |
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".