"Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses": American Responses to the Indochinese and Syrian Refugee Crises
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it