A study of movement and order : the securitization of migration in Canada and France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation is about the movement of people and the system of order underpinning the movement. In undertaking a comparative study of Canada and France between 1989 and 2005, the study explores a widespread phenomenon that security studies and migration scholars would have considered an anomaly only two decades ago: understanding the movement of people as an existential security threat. How is it that nation-states around the globe are cracking down on migration for security reasons? How do we know if migration has been securitized - and which criteria should we employed to guide our analysis? What are the social mechanisms at play in the interaction between movement and order? Does a variation in levels of securitized migration exist - and if so, what are the key determinants of the variation? These questions are at the heart of the present study. My argument is twofold. First, I contend that a constructivist perspective is useful in gaining a better understanding of the social mechanisms involved in the securitization of migration as it highlights discursive power, ideational factors, and cultural/contextual elements. Second, I argue that securitization theory - the current benchmark in securitization research - remains silent on the issue of variation in levels of securitized migration. As such, securitization theory, as currently applied and organized, cannot explain empirical findings of my study - a weak securitization in Canada versus a strong securitization in France. Underscoring the necessity to amend securitization theory, I investigate the impact of cultural factors - and especially the role of domestic audience - to account for the variation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".