The Impact of Legal Status on Different Schooling Aspects of Adolescents in Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the so-called refugee crisis of 2015, approximately 300,000 underage asylum seekers came to Germany. We examine whether their legal status and their subjective perception of their status are equally important for their educational integration. On the basis of rational choice theory, we hypothesize that refugees’ legal status should affect their educational outcomes. Our study finds no differences among students with different legal statuses in school placement. However, students who perceive their status as insecure report significantly worse GPA than students who feel rather secure. Concerning the objective legal status, we do find that students with an insecure legal status report better grades than those with a granted refugee status. These contrary results show the importance of additionally considering status perception in understanding and explaining educational outcomes of immigrants in further research. Educators should be aware of the potential divergence between objective and subjective status and their corresponding effects on educational trajectories. **** Note that the original PDF version of this article contained a production error, which has now been fixed. As a result, the original pagination has been adjusted. ***
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".