"The ties that bind" : an analysis of the establishment of a European immigration policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
European member states have historically refused to admit that they are nations of migration. Current socio-economic factors are forcing them to re-evaluate that viewpoint. The decision to amend immigration policy to aptly reflect the multicultural reality of the modern European state is supported by the European Union institutions. The Union of European states began with the 1957 Treaty of Rome and has expanded to include fifteen nations representing over 370 million citizens. Since the launch of the Treaty of Rome immigration issues have remained open for discussion, and while they have never entered the realm of core issues they have be attended to at each Summit and Intergovernmental Conference from the aforementioned Treaty of Rome to the 2001 Conference on Migration. At the 1997 Amsterdam Conference the European Union, with the support of its member states, called for the establishment of a common European immigration policy by 2004. Thus, national policies must be combined with each other to create legislation that protects the national sovereignty of member governments while appropriately addressing the needs of EU citizens and third country nationals. In this work I argue that the European Union will successfully launch its common immigration policy, with member support, by 2004. I draw this conclusion via an analysis of EU immigration legislation and a country-based analysis, which addresses the needs and expectations of three Union members: Britain, Germany and Finland, with regard to immigration policy and involvement in Union legislation. It is my conclusion that the institutional and legal foundation has been established upon which to establish Europe's common immigration policy.
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 | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".