MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405369332 · doi:10.3917/rfsen.534.0473

10.3917/rfsen.534.0473

2000· article· en· W2405369332 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Exile Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompassionImmigrationCriminologyLawPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)SociologyPsychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unaccompanied immigrant minors arrested on French borders are today detained in airport waiting zones, then brought before a freedoms and detention judge who rules on whether they are to be maintained in detention or released. Combining observations of hearings and interviews with actors involved in them, this research study focuses on the emotional and moral order in which these proceedings unfold; namely the tension between two conflicting images of minors: as vulnerable and in need of protection; as illegal migrants who should be sanctioned. Hearing deliberations are characterized by an emphasis on compassion where the general understanding is that these young defendants should be shown consideration. However, the study also shows how the values and moral assessments deriving from this empathic approach operate in practice: under some circumstances, an apparently repressive measure may be taken because it protects minors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9940.980

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · 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