Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the Second World War, asylum has become institutionalized within the framework of the 1951 Geneva Convention. In France, the National Court of Asylum (Cour Nationale du Droit d’Asile) examines appeals from applicants whose requests have been turned down by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Office Francais de Protection des Refugies et Apatrides). It operates in a context where public discourse increasingly casts doubt on the validity of the majority of claims and where the Office’s application acceptance rate has fallen from nine in ten to one in ten in the last thirty years. We examine how changes in the moral economy of asylum and a shift from trust to suspicion are reflected in local justice practices founded on the principles of independence and the fairness of the institution. Based on the results of an eighteen-month-long observation and interview study, we analyse rapporteurs’ recommendations and magistrates’ adjudications. We show that, despite sociological differences between rapporteurs, their recommendations differ little, while the pressure of institutional procedures attenuates differences in judgements. The tension that thus develops between ideals and norms of asylum protection on the one hand, and policy injunctions and routine practices on the other, is resolved by the conviction that the principle of asylum is better defended when access to it is restricted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.975 | 0.981 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".