Joint EU Resettlement Programme: the health of refugee and humanitarian arrivals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 2 September 2009, the European Commission proposed the establishment of a Joint EU Resettlement Programme.1 The aim of the programme, led by an EU-wide Resettlement Expert Group, is to expand EU resettlement of refugees and humanitarian entrants, already determined by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), to be in genuine need of international protection. In 2010, UNHCR estimates that around 747 000 persons worldwide are in need of resettlement.2 This number is increasing without corresponding growth in the number of available resettlement places.3 Further, host countries in the developing world, with limited resources, are overburdened and simply cannot integrate large numbers of refugees into their own expanding populace. The Joint EU Resettlement Programme therefore progresses the EU’s ‘greater solidarity’ to third countries that are overloaded, while improving coordination of EU external policies and credibility in international affairs more generally. The USA, Canada and Australia are the three major resettlement nations. Of the 65 850 refugees resettled worldwide in 2008, just 6.7% (4378) were resettled in 10 EU …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".