The Uneven Development of the International Refugee Regime in Postwar Asia: Evidence from China, Hong Kong and Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article contrasts three different refugee populations in Asia in order to draw attention to an aspect of the early UNHCR that has so far escaped the attention of refugee scholars. Existing research on the history of UNHCR emphasizes the agency's Cold War origins and its evolving role in international politics. However, this article suggests that when it comes to understanding the UNHCR response to refugee crises in Asia in the 1950s, a Cold War perspective alone is insufficient. What emerges from this study is that the early UNHCR was both a Cold War era institution and a colonial era institution. UNHCR's approach to refugee problems in Asia in the 1950s was shaped not only by a Cold War calculus but by a lingering colonial atmosphere, one in which it was taken for granted that ethnic Chinese were both unwelcome and barred from most western countries, and in which solutions to refugee problems in Asia were instead sought in older colonial understandings of the mass deployment of Chinese labour on a global scale to meet the needs of distant economies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".