MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113877671 · doi:10.3828/rs.2000.2

'Gypsy Invasion': A critical analysis of newspaper reaction to Czech and Slovak Romani asylum-seekers in Britain, 1997

2000· article· en· W2113877671 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Colin Clark, Elaine Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueRomani Studies · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRomani and Gypsy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperXenophobiaRefugeeRacismCzechPoliticsIrishSlovakHistoryDeportationPolitical scienceImmigrationCriminologySociologyMedia studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following Canadian efforts to prevent Romanies from Slovakia and the Czech Republic entering its territory, in October 1997, Romani families from the former Czechoslovakia started to arrive at the port of Dover in Kent, England. They were attempting to claim political asylum in the UK due to the high levels of institutionalised racism and discrimination which forced them to flee their home countries. The reactions these families received from most sections of the British press were vitriolic and overtly hostile. It is this newspaper coverage that will be unpacked, examined and critically discussed in this article. Importantly, we regard the newspaper texts not simply as material for a contemporary case study, but as an object of analysis which is both a product of a particular historical moment, and simultaneously a recent manifestation of a longer historical project to construct Roma people in censuring and censorious ways. For all that, our analysis reveals very little of the struggles and experiences of these asylum-seekers, but everything about British xenophobia, anti-Gypsyism, and the (a) British way of life.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0100.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.374 · 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

Citations62
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRomani StudiesSame topicRomani and Gypsy StudiesFrench-language works237,207