MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888954462 · doi:10.17645/si.v6i3.1692

Migration, Boundaries and Differentiated Citizenship: Contested Frameworks for Inclusion and Exclusion

2018· article· en· W2888954462 on OpenAlexaff
Terry Wotherspoon

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Inclusion · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipInclusion–exclusion principleSociologyInclusion (mineral)PoliticsImmigrationSocial exclusionInequalityPolitical economyGender studiesSocial sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary migration across borders is beset by contradictory pressures and challenges. Some borders remain relatively open, especially for potential immigrants with valued skills and assets or for humanitarian reasons, but in many other cases borders are becoming increasingly more regulated or impermeable. The differential capacities for mobility that accompany these developments are contributing to new categories and hierarchies of citizenship and belonging which are being shaped by and exacerbate significant social, economic and political inequalities. This editorial highlights core relationships that have emerged in the process of regulating geographical and social boundaries in different national contexts, focusing on the intersections between dynamics of social inclusion and exclusion and the construction of differential categories of citizenship. The editorial establishes a framework for the articles that follow in this thematic issue, emphasizing the contested, fragmented, variable and highly uneven nature of borders and citizenship regimes.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.032
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial InclusionSame topicCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207