MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904590538 · doi:10.1177/1532708618817880

The Power of Inclusion: Theorizing “Abjectivity” and Agency Under DACA

2018· article· en· W2904590538 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Basia D. Ellis, Roberto G. Gonzales, Sarah García

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Studies &#x2194 Critical Methodologies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCalifornia State University, SacramentoHarvard UniversityJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur FoundationBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsDeportationAgency (philosophy)LiminalityImmigrationPower (physics)Inclusion (mineral)SociologyAuthorizationPolitical scienceCriminologyPublic administrationGender studiesLawSocial scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical migration scholars argue that undocumented 1.5-generation immigrants occupy distinct forms of “abject” statuses, as legally excluded yet physically included members of society. Implemented in June 2012, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program promised to alleviate the situation of many undocumented young persons in the United States by providing them with temporary work authorization, social security numbers, and protection from deportation. Using critical psychological theory, we examine how DACA altered the condition of “abjectivity” characterizing DACA recipients’ lives, revealing how partially inclusive immigration policies can (re)create liminal subjectivities and give rise to new modes of agency and belonging.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.117
Scholarly communication0.0110.017
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0030.005
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture Studies &#x2194 Critical MethodologiesSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207