MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109454505 · doi:10.1177/1057567720975453

Rearrests of Noncitizens Subsequent to Immigration Removal From the United States

2020· article· en· W3109454505 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer S. Wong, Laura J. Hickman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Criminal Justice Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeportationImmigrationCriminologyCriminal justiceImmigration lawPolitical scienceCriminal recordLawSample (material)Immigration detentionAssertionDemographic economicsSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deportation or removal from the United States for criminal justice–involved noncitizens has been described as analogous to incapacitation. A common assertion is that if immigration authorities remove these noncitizens from the United States, future criminal justice involvement will be averted. The present study explores the hypothesized incapacitation effect of immigration removal and tests whether a record of prior removal predicts postremoval rearrest patterns. The sample consists of 521 foreign-born males with a verified immigration removal from the United States, following transfer into federal immigration custody from Los Angeles County Jail in 2002. California rearrests after the date of verified U.S. removal were tracked through 2011. Results indicate that 48% of the sample was rearrested at least once and 22% had three or more postremoval arrests. These findings do not support the hypothesis that deportation equates to permanent incapacitation. The study also found that a record of prior removal did not predict postremoval rearrest likelihood or frequency. As a single longitudinal study and the first of its kind, these results alone cannot inform responsible policy recommendations. The study does, however, highlight directions for further research and the pressing need for access to individual-level immigration data for empirical study and public distribution of results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueInternational Criminal Justice ReviewSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207