The Criminalization of Immigration and Intellectual Disability in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public attitudes, negative stereotypes, and stigma are essential to cultural narratives about the membership status of people with intellectual disability and people who have immigrated to the United States. With a concern for the exclusion of people from participation in democratic societies, this mixed methods study explores conceptual links between the criminalization of intellectual disability and immigration. The overlay of criminal justice norms and practices onto civil law without parallel adoption of safeguards results in the misallocation of risk to individuals with out-group membership status. This study offers conceptual analysis by applying to the policy issue, standard of proof of intellectual disability in death penalty cases, the framework of membership theory and related constructs present in the scholarly literature on immigration policy. Exact measures logistic regression is used to predictively link states’ standards of proof of intellectual disability with immigration status. It was found that the best model predicting the probability of a Higher than Preponderance standard of proof of intellectual disability in death penalty cases was a two-variable model consisting of Prior Ban and Unauthorized Immigration. This study presents recommendations for research and policy practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".