MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520020581

Justice and Authority in Immigration Law

2016· article· en· W2520020581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arthur Glass

Bibliographic record

VenueSydney law review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationLawEconomic JusticeImmigration lawSociologyRefugeePolitical sciencePhilosophy of lawSettlement (finance)Value (mathematics)PoliticsPolitical philosophyEnforcementImmigration policyLaw and economicsComparative lawEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Those interested in immigration justice or, more broadly, in liberal political theory will want to read this tightly and forcefully argued book. Colin Grey, the author of  Justice and Authority in Immigration Law , is well read in contemporary writings on these topics. Further, as a legal adviser to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada he brings something else to the task, as he knows of the many practical difficulties of applying a principled approach to immigration law and policy (for example, cap setting, selection criteria, processing, settlement and enforcement). Many philosophical accounts of immigration explore the subject matter by way of two issues: (1) arguments as to the value of states; and then, assuming states, and thus borders, (2) a discussion as to the reasons why states may adopt a policy of partially closed borders, consistent with liberal principles. This book offers the reader so much more than this.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.020
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSydney law reviewSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207