ECHOES OF THE OLD COUNTRIES OR BRAVE NEW WORLDS? LEGAL RESPONSES TO REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS IN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spite of their colonial origins and their continuing ties with Great Britain and Europe, it is only recently that Australia and New Zealand have begun to think in global terms about immigration control and the challenges posed by asylum seekers. The experience of unauthorized migration in these two countries has been somewhat different. Nevertheless, both are now feeling the effects of the burgeoning industry of people smuggling. The closure of traditional migration routes throughout Europe brought about by the harmonization of laws and practice within the European Union may be one factor in the rise of unauthorized migration in the Asia Pacific region. While European laws and policies rarely rate a mention in the refugee discourse in this part of the world, the response to the mobile asylum seeker phenomenon reveals many resonances with the approaches adopted in the “old World” of the European Union – and, more recently, in the United States. This paper argues that, in Australia’s case, some “borrowings” from Europe and from North America have been inappropriate for this region. Far from evincing a commitment to global solutions and rationalized responses to humanitarian crises, the Australian initiatives suggest a country immersed in local concerns and self-interest. In spite of its tiny size and geographical isolation, the greater openness of New Zealand’s laws provides some interesting contrast material. Of equal interest, however, is the attention the world is beginning to pay to Australia’s asylum laws – most particularly those relating to the detention and removal of asylum seekers who come as unauthorized arrivals.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".