Towards a Common European Asylum System: Asylum, Human Rights, and European Values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The turn of the millennium has been met with a considerable amount of work in the area of refugee protection, culminating in the UNHCR’s Agenda for Protection and Convention Plus initiatives. In addition, in 1999 the European Union embarked on a five-year program to develop a Common European Asylum System as mandated by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Work done by the European Commission sought to incorporate asylum into broader issues of immigration, border security, and foreign relations. As a result, entitlements were generally limited to those that have been mandated by applicable international, European, or domestic law. Some exceptions were further reduced at the political level. Functional values of bureaucratic efficiency and pragmatic political considerations converged to create the lowest common denominator. On the other hand, voices in civil society were raised to protest this approach, advocating that normative values that underpin international human rights law should serve as the interpretative context. In light of this debate, this may be an appropriate time for the international community to revisit the question of status for those not described in the Geneva Convention.
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 | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".