Bibliographic record
Abstract
During last quarter of 20th Century, many Haitians left their homeland in search of a better life, elsewhere. Because they left for a variety of reasons--social, and political--it is difficult to place them all in a single category. Based upon pull and push factors which caused them to leave they are usually referred to as economic or Regardless of name given to them, they are among most abused in our society, having undergone extraordinary distress in their efforts to reach host country and sometimes having suffered equal hardship upon their arrival. The public exposure of their plight has brought about an international outcry both from governmental and non-governmental organizations. This paper will assess international concern shown for Haitian migrants in United States, Dominican Republic and Bahamas. Haitians in United States Historically, United States has been accused of pursuing a racist policy in regard to granting of refugee status (USCCR, 1-19); therefore, it was surprising that some of international human rights organizations questioned its attitude toward Haitian migrants. Such a challenge took place June 22, 1979 when International Human Right Law Group (US) complained to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of Organization of American States (OAS) concerning treatment of Haitian refugees. According to petition, which was filed on behalf of National Council of Churches, the procedures employed by United States in handling claims of these Haitian refugees violated regional and international commitments which U.S. has undertaken. It was accused of failing to observe obligations which it assumed as a result of its membership in OAS, and as a signatory of American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man (Declaration), and American Convention on Human Rights (Convention). The petition cited Article XXVII of Declaration, which binds U.S. not only to act in accordance with its domestic laws in granting asylum to those seeking it, but must also act in accordance with international agreements, including Protocol Relating to Status of Refugees (IHRLG, 2). Specifically, United States was accused of: * Depriving Haitian nationals seeking asylum in U.S. of their rights to equal protection and to life and liberty. * Depriving Haitian refugees of their rights to due process. * Discriminating against Haitian nationals on basis of their country of origin. * Denying Haitian effective access to U.S. courts due to harassment and other actions which interfere with legal representation. * Returning Haitian refugees to Haiti where their lives or freedom are threatened on basis of political opinion (IHRLG, 9). Although IACHR normally does accept cases until domestic remedies have been exhausted, petitioner suggested that a waiver of this requirement be made, inasmuch as once domestic remedies have been exhausted, Haitian refugee seeking political asylum in U.S. is subject to immediate deportation and is placed in imminent peril of violations to his personal security and safety upon refoulement to Haiti (IHRLG, 11). Although State Department questioned right of IACHR to consider issue, it agreed to allow Commission to undertake an on-site investigation of situation, if it decided that such was needed. The United States assured IACHR that if such an investigation was made, it would do everything possible to facilitate effort (USDS, 4). In a memorandum to IACHR, International Human Rights Law Group suggested that in case original petition was declared inadmissible because of nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, Commission should conduct a study and issue a report on situation of Haitian refugees in United States. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".