Bibliographic record
Abstract
T he reform of the German citizenship law in 1999 presents both a veritable puzzle and a significant challenge to those who have a civic or republican understanding of nationhood as the liberal-democratic solution to immigrant membership. On the one hand, the German law opens the way for the introduction of a strong ius soli element (acquired by place of birth) and more tolerant naturalization; on the other hand, it remains restrictive in terms of dual citizenship (cf. Figure 5.1). Indeed, the principle of descent-based ius sanguinis is now complemented by ius soli : children born in Germany of at least one parent who has resided in Germany for six years can now acquire German citizenship in addition to their parents’ nationality; further, as-of-right naturalization can be obtained after only eight years rather than fifteen, as was previously the case. Still, even though there are now more exceptions, dual citizenship is not accepted as a rule. Interestingly, a compromise on ius soli and dual citizenship between the contending political parties was possible by reverting to a principle applied mostly in the nineteenth century: the compulsory option principle. This principle dictates that the person who receives German citizenship under the new law by ius soli must at maturity choose one citizenship only. In sum, there is a very glaring disjunction: Germany (along with the UK, Ireland, and Portugal) now has the most liberal ius soli regulation in Europe, but (along with Austria, Denmark, and Iceland) remains among the most restrictive countries—at least legally— regarding dual citizenship. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.023 |
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".