MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3019309673

Shortcomings of Refugee Protection: An Argument for Open Borders

2020· article· en· W3019309673 on OpenAlexaff
Lyne Amaya Dalby Althaus

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeePolitical scienceHumanitiesEthnologyLawSociologyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to highlight the current international system’s inability to protect the 3.5 million asylum-seekers and 25.9 million refugees found globally. I argue that in a world in which states continuously fail to help those in need of refuge, in spite of international legally-binding agreements, the only way to ensure their protection is to break down the barriers they face by allowing them to freely migrate and settle down in their country of choice, also known as a system of open borders. The lack of a supranational body of power that can ensure the implementation of international agreements, the usage of border walls and other security measures that lead migrants towards less guarded and unsafe routes of travel, the invasive and psychologically challenging asylum process, and the fundamental value that all people are morally equal are some of the arguments put forward.  Resume : Le but de cet article est de souligner l’incapacite du systeme international actuel a proteger les 3,5 millions de demandeurs d’asile et les 25,9 millions de refugies qui se trouvent dans le monde. Je soutiens que dans un monde ou les Etats ne parviennent pas a venir en aide a ceux qui ont besoin d’un refuge, en depit d’accords internationaux juridiquement contraignants, la seule facon d’assurer leur protection est de briser les barrieres auxquelles ils sont confrontes en leur permettant de migrer librement et de s’installer dans leur pays de choix, egalement connu sous le nom de systeme de frontieres ouvertes. L’absence d’un organe supranational puissant, capable d’assurer la mise en œuvre des accords internationaux, l’utilisation des barrieres frontalieres et d’autres mesures de securite qui conduisent les migrants vers des itineraires moins proteges et dangereux, le processus d’asile hostile et psychologiquement difficile et la valeur fondamentale que tous les individus sont moralement egaux sont quelques-uns des arguments avances.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.075
Scholarly communication0.0150.024
Open science0.0040.020
Research integrity0.0240.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMigration, Refugees, and Integration→French-language works237,207→