MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325159763 · doi:10.5117/cms2014.2.volk

Money for Nothing, the Cricks for Free

2014· article· en· W2325159763 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Migration Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de MontréalDeutscher Akademischer AustauschdienstEuropean Commission
KeywordsNegotiationImmigrationIrregular migrationNothingDeterrence theoryImmigration policySecurity policyPolitical scienceEconomicsPolitical economyLaw and economicsBusinessComputer securityEconomic geographyLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conflictive targets of achieving security for itself, and assuring basic human rights for irregular migrants, have led to paradox EU migration policies. The increasing perception of (uncontrolled) immigration as a potential security threat has contributed to a migration approach that is driven primarily by principles of defence and deterrence. Focusing on the Mediterranean region, this article points to five paradoxes, in areas where EU immigration policies and actions not only fail to reach their targets but often generate opposite outcomes. This comes at high costs in terms of financial contributions and human losses. in addition, these policies unnecessarily reduce the EU’s negotiating power in other policy fields. The article concludes with recommended changes in EU migration policies and calls for an end to the hitherto security-dominated approach to migration.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.212 · 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