PUTTING PEOPLE LAST: LESSONS FROM THE REGULATION OF MIGRATION IN RUSSIA AND TAJIKISTAN
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses the recent developments and general direction of migration policy in two former Soviet Union countries – Russia and Tajikistan – from the lens of the current narrative in the field of migration research, paying attention to the economic and demographic reasons for migration, its legal and political framework, and the nascent integration and inclusion programs. While explaining the roots of the existing migration policy, and distinguishing between the migration policies of sending and receiving countries, the paper defines such terms as migration regime, migration mechanisms and migration regulations. The paper concludes that Russian migration policy reflects the inconsistency between the de jure liberal principles/ norms and their de facto restrictive application. The deeply embedded desire to limit an influx of the “Other” in Russia presents a serious threat to migration policy and the future economic development of the country. By contrast, while developing a comprehensive legislation, Tajikistan lacks the political will and resources to monitor its implementation and progressively demand the delivery of the results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it