The significance of migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout history, migration has been intimately related to economic and social development: it is often seen as the result of imbalances in development, but also as influencing development. Assessments of the influence of migration on development have varied over time: sometimes migration has been seen as beneficial and at others detrimental to development, depending on the historical moment and circumstances. With the variation in perspectives has come variation in migration and development policies. In the latter quarter of the twentieth century, the view in Europe shifted from seeing migration as a factor contributing to economic growth in the receiving states and to development in the sending states, to the prevailing view that immigration pressures have reached intolerable levels. More restrictive legislation has been accompanied by tendencies to confuse the status of refugees and illegal migrants and to lump together concerns about security with the problem of asylum seekers. Development and conflict prevention are seen as needed in the migrant-sending countries to curtail unwanted migration. However, while there has been much talk of improving economic and security conditions in source countries – assumed to alleviate migration pressures – so far the emphasis has been on policies aimed at curbing immigration at the destination end – a trend likely to gain momentum in the wake of the events of 11 September 2001.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads 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".