International migration management in the age of artificial intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionise the way states and international organisations seek to manage international migration. AI is gradually going to be used to perform tasks, including identity checks, border security and control, and analysis of data about visa and asylum applicants. To an extent, this is already a reality in some countries such as Canada, which uses algorithmic decision-making in immigration and asylum determination, and Germany, which has piloted projects using technologies such as face and dialect recognition for decision-making in asylum determination processes. The article’s central hypothesis is that AI technology can affect international migration management in three different dimensions: (1) by deepening the existing asymmetries between states on the international plane; (2) by modernising states’ and international organisations’ traditional practices; and (3) by reinforcing the contemporary calls for more evidence-based migration management and border security. The article examines each of these three hypotheses and reflects on the main challenges of using AI solutions for international migration management. It draws on legal, political and technology-facing academic literature, examining the current trends in technological developments and investigating the consequences that these can have for international migration. Most particularly, the article contributes to the current debate about the future of international migration management, informing policymakers in this area of growing importance and fast development.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".