Living in limbo: Economic and social costs for refugees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our paper tests the hypothesis that living in limbo could have negative consequences for the socio‐economic integration of refugees. We define limbo as a protracted period when asylum seekers are waiting for the decision concerning their permanent refugee status. Relying on the French survey of migrants, France's longitudinal survey of migrants (ELIPA), we measure integration by labour market participation, fluency in French, finding new French friends and studying. To account for the endogeneity of limbo, we instrument it with the administrative backlog. We find that living longer in limbo during the asylum‐seeking period slows down future integration of refugees, but results differ with respect to gender and educational attainment. While having lived longer in limbo slows down most aspects of socio‐economic integration for refugees with no degree or a high school degree, those with a bachelor's degree do not experience negative effects. Male refugees who had lived longer in limbo have a lower likelihood of being employed and studying in France, while similar females make fewer French friends.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".