MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141519022

COMPETING FOR SKILLS: US IMMIGRATION POLICY SINCE 1990

2004· article· en· W2141519022 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan F. Martin, B. Lindsay Lowell

Bibliographic record

VenueSMU Scholar (Southern Methodist University) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationPresentation (obstetrics)SuitePolitical scienceLibrary scienceMedia studiesPublic administrationEconomic historySociologyHistoryLawMedicineComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MMIGRATION policies are the mix of international, national, and local rules and programs that aim to facilitate the admission and integration of some foreigners and prevent the entry and stay of others.This article examines U.S. policies on legal immigration, with particular focus on the admission of highly skilled migrants.The United States is a nation of immigrants.Americans share a common experience: they or their forebears left another country to begin anew in the United States.Historically through the turn of the twentieth century, immigrant newcomers came in waves that reinforced the national origin of their forebears, and the government minimally regulated numbers or skills.That changed with legislation in the 1920s that introduced restrictions based on national origins, followed by slow post-World War II policy liberalization and the genesis of today's admission policies in the 1960s.Now policymakers debate the merits of admitting immigrants primarily for their family ties, which essentially reinforces national origin, compared with an emphasis on immigrants' skills.Immigration to the United States has been of such volume and diversity that there is an intrinsic acceptance, at times reluctantly, of the role immigrants from diverse places play in constructing the "American."Certainly, Canadians see themselves as a land of immigration, but the British and French enterprises in Canada displace immigration as the founding myth of the "Canadian" (Hawkins 1988:34).These national differences have contributed to different historical justifications for similar, exclusionary, admission policies.In either case, early U.S. and Canadian immigration or admission policies from the turn-of-the-century were explicitly linked to immigrant or integration policy.Exclusionary policies and restrictions on the number of immigrants were devised to address integration concerns.Significant changes ensued in the two decades following the Second World War.The post-war policies repealed exclusion-

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSMU Scholar (Southern Methodist University)Same topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207