MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144298827 · doi:10.18733/c30596

“There is no home for me in this world”: States of statelessness and the need to deterritorialize human rights

2010· article· en· W2144298827 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Maria-Carolina Cambre

Bibliographic record

VenueCultural and Pedagogical Inquiry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatelessnessHuman rightsCitizenshipSovereigntyPolitical scienceState (computer science)Law and economicsDehumanizationLawSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are millions of people in the world today who ‘reside’ in no place. Technically, though, no place simply means a non-existent place, which by extension annuls the existence of these people. May of these are from areas where they not recognized as citizens, and from where they have been uprooted because of war and related upheavals. In these instances, these have no other choice but to seek other places to live. It is indeed, when the doors are shut and they are not accepted in the new places that they become denationalized and trapped in ‘no-man’s land.’ Such acts of exclusion are dehumanizing, painful and should not be accepted in our world. In this paper, I argue that this widespread problem exists due to lack of basic citizenship and human rights possibilities. The problem is also attached to specific understandings of sovereignty and human rights where, in the case of a conflict, for example, whatever the nation-state almost always takes precedence over the fundamental rights of the individual and/or groups. Indeed, this problematic reality is discursively (as well as pragmatically) located within the human rights, and related governance debates, which always display some form of conceptual and practical disconnect between the nation-state’s right to refuse entry, and an individual’s right for asylum.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.259
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCultural and Pedagogical InquirySame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207