MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897053320 · doi:10.29173/cons29330

"Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses": American Responses to the Indochinese and Syrian Refugee Crises

2017· article· en· W2897053320 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emily Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueConstellations · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVietnamese History and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeePolitical scienceHistoryCriminologyPsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2015, in the midst of the European migrant crisis, the United States admitted 10,000 Syrian refugees.This was but a miniscule portion of the 4.9 million refugees who had been displaced by the war in the Syrian Arab Republic by the end of that year, and paled in comparison to the efforts of many European nations.That the U.S. commitment to receive and resettle Syrian refugees in 2015 was so small, and that even this low figure served to attract substantial criticism and dismay, is indicative of the divisive nature of the issue of refugee resettlement in the United States.This attitude of reluctance and even animosity toward refugee resettlement is stark in contrast to the expansive American commitment to refugees forty years prior during the height of the Indochinese refugee crisis when, between fall 1978 and the end of 1980, over 166,000 refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia entered the United States.This study examines the discourses surrounding refugee resettlement in the United States during the Indochinese refugee crisis of the late 1970s and the ongoing European migrant crisis, with a focus on how the political context of these crises shaped the response of the American government and public.Ultimately, this research demonstrates how foreign policy concerns, domestic political culture, and conceptions of American identity all contribute to determining the extent to which Americans welcome or reject the world's refugees in times of crisis.On November 9, 2016, U.S. presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton met in the second presidential debate of the year's election.When asked about his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States, Trump turned to the European migrant crisis."They're coming in by the tens of thousands because of Barack Obama," he declared, "and Hillary Clinton wants to allow a 550 percent increase over Obama."The danger, Trump claimed, was that "people are coming into our country, like we have no idea who they are, where they're from, what their feeling about our country is, and she wants 550 percent more."By Trump's interpretation, the "hundreds of thousands of people coming in from Syria" were in fact "the greatest Trojan horse of all time."Clinton countered Trump's security concerns by affirming that she would "not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us."She further invoked a

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstellationsSame topicVietnamese History and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207