Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis investigates how U.S. national interests have been defined in the country’s immigration policy, and whether the current policy, which prioritizes family-based immigration, supports those interests. The Donald J. Trump administration has looked to Canada’s points-based system, which has brought highly skilled and educated immigrants into the country. Through a comparative analysis of Canada’s and the United States’ immigration policies, this research provides perspective on whether screening immigrants is an effective way to meet a country’s national interests, particularly economic interests, and whether other factors must be considered for immigration policies. Ultimately, this thesis found that current U.S. immigration policies do not best serve national interests. This is not because the U.S. prioritizes family-based immigration but rather because the stagnant immigration policy does not respond to the changing needs of the country. Common-sense immigration reform requires more than looking to foreign partners for solutions; it requires us to review current practices and identify ways to enhance existing policies.
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 | 0.027 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".