MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766588972

The Reception and Processing of Minors in the United States in Comparison to that of Australia and Canada: Would Being a Party to the UN Convention on the Right of the Child Make a Difference in U.S. Courts?

2017· article· en· W2766588972 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E Padilla Corona

Bibliographic record

VenueHastings international and comparative law review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I. IntroductionIn 2014, a surge of minors flocking to the United States from various Central American countries, including El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras took place.U.S. Border Patrol agents apprehended 47,000 thousand unaccompanied migrant children entering the United States during 2014. 1 At the same time as this Central American surge, Syrian refugees were fleeing their native country and seeking refuge in several countries, including Australia and Canada.In 2015, Australia decided to accept 12 thousand Syrian refugees. 2Likewise, in 2016, Canada pledged $8.5 million to support refugees over the time span of two and a half years. 3 Unlike in Australia and Canada, on January 25, 2017, the President of

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHastings international and comparative law reviewSame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207