Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global compacts on refugees and migration are expressions of what I call “humanitarian hubris”. This hubris is manifested in at least three ways. The first is the global compacts’ confidence in the need to manage migration and asylum in the first place, along with the hubris that governments and international agencies are capable of managing global movements in a “safe, orderly, and regular” manner. The second source of hubris concerns the desire for good information, data, and analysis of emerging situations, but only along strictly defined “problem-solving” paths. Third, there is the assumption that questions of sovereignty have been settled, all the while ignoring the active contestations of sovereignty by refugees, migrants, and other marginalized groups, such as indigenous peoples. Taken together, these examples of hubris project a kind of global confidence that makes them blind to other ways of framing the challenges and opportunities represented by contemporary migrations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".