MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784471017

Contiguous Territories: The Expanded Use of Expedited Removal in the Trump Era

2018· article· en· W2784471017 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Geoffrey A. Hoffman

Bibliographic record

VenueMaryland Journal of International Law · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImmigration Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedressStatutory lawStatuteJurisdictionPolitical scienceLawNationalityImmigration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EXPEDITED REMOVAL UNDER INA § 235The Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") contains a littleknown provision that permits the physical return of individuals who enter from "contiguous territories" (i.e., Mexico or Canada) pending their removal proceedings before a United States immigration judge. 1 The statute, interestingly, only applies to those who enter from those countries, and there is no requirement that the person actually be a citizen or national of either Mexico or Canada. 2 Furthermore, the provision is embedded within the "expedited removal" section, INA § 235, 8 U.S.C. § 1225; but importantly, the person subjected to the contiguous territories provision is not "deported" immediately but made to wait outside the U.S. during his judicial removal proceedings.3 There is thus a "legal fiction" created by the statutory scheme whereby a person is "in" the U.S. for purposes of jurisdiction over his or her INA § 240, 8 U.S.C. §1229a, removal proceedings, while technically

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.018
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaryland Journal of International LawSame topicImmigration Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207