MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2484284228 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107284357.005

The asylum crisis

2016· book-chapter· en· W2484284228 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Dauvergne

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeImmigrationPoliticsPolitical scienceRefugee lawLawInternational lawAsylum seekerRefugee crisisPolitical economyCriminologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The asylum crisis comes from the realization that Western states cannot effectively limit the number of asylum claims they will receive each year. By the mid-1980s the number of people claiming asylum in prosperous Western states was rising sharply. At that initial point Western states made a decision – implicitly or explicitly – that resulted in the rise in asylum numbers having long-term worldwide impacts. That decision, repeated over and over by diverse states, was that the appropriate response to a desire to curtail the number of asylum seekers would be to introduce measures directed at specific features of asylum flows, rather than to withdraw from or seek to alter the legal parameters of international refugee law. This approach has evolved into a profound commitment to international refugee law, which has altered the international framework of global migration. It has also ushered in a contentious and intransigent politics of asylum that was the first harbinger of a new politics of immigration. International refugee law makes the asylum crisis possible. As I outlined in Chapter 2, the central commitment of refugee law is that people who are refugees must not be returned to countries where they face a risk of being persecuted. The law was negotiated in the immediate aftermath of World War II, and its objective was to resolve the problems of population displacement in Europe and to ensure that the “burden” of displaced populations would be shared between states. The specific contours of the Refugee Convention reflect its historic context in two important ways. First, the Convention does not aim to protect everyone: its protection is extended to individuals who are at risk because of their political views or identity. In this way, refugees as originally conceptualized resemble those who were most victimized and most valorized by the horrors of World War II and the onset of the Cold War: religious and racial and national minorities, dissidents, and resisters. Second, refugee law was initially limited to protecting only people in Europe and only those who were displaced prior to 1951. The Refugee Convention also set up a framework for limiting state responsibilities: decisions are made on an individual basis; states do not have any general responsibilities but, rather, are limited to caring for those who arrive on their territory; and a notion of “burden sharing” is written into the text of the Preamble.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207