How European Immigration Policies Interfere with Transnational Couples’ Citizenship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Private affairs such as marriage and family life usually elicit little political concern in our societies. Not so with transnational marriage when a foreigner is involved. Until the 1990s, when it came to transnational marriage, immigration laws in Europe differed quite considerably: some countries were tolerant, others more restrictive. European harmonization brought about the adoption of Directives on family reunification for Third Country Nationals and citizens of the European Union, but Nationals borders and “citizenship exclusion or failure,” the article highlights typical situations in which transnational couples’ rights are limited. At the outset of their relationship, their respective legal positions are unequal and they must tackle the problems posed by social integration; at best, they encounter social insensitivity, but also official discrimination. Their project to found an international family is obstructed by administrative hurdles and challenged in its very private meaning. Couples may retrieve the full exercise of their citizenship through self-help groups, human rights associations or lawyers who defend their rights and advise them on how to contend with the situation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".