MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559949336 · doi:10.1111/imig.12308

Sanctuary Cities: Policies and Practices in International Perspective

2016· article· en· W2559949336 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Migration · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentVariety (cybernetics)Political sciencePerspective (graphical)RefugeeUrban policySociologyPublic administrationEconomic growthUrban planningLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sanctuary cities in the USA , UK , and Canada aim to accommodate illegalized migrants and refugees in their communities. The concept of the “sanctuary city,” however, is highly ambiguous: it refers to a variety of different policies and practices, and focuses on variable populations in different national contexts. In this article, I examine the international literature to show how urban sanctuary policies and practices differ between national contexts and assess whether there are common features of sanctuary cities. I uncover legal, discursive, identity‐formative, and scalar aspects of urban sanctuary policies and practices. These aspects assemble in ways that differ between countries. The article concludes by raising important practical and theoretical questions about urban sanctuary.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.345 · 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