MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3154567215 · doi:10.1017/9781316551103.003

The Making of Swiss Immigration Policy

2021· book-chapter· en· W3154567215 on OpenAlexaff
Antje Ellermann

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationTreatyImmigration policyPolitical scienceEuropean unionGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationFree movementPolitical economyLawInternational tradeSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter lays out the making of Swiss economic immigration policy from the late 1940s to the mid-2010s. It begins with the establishment of Switzerland’s guest worker regime with the signing of the Swiss-Italian recruitment treaty in 1948. The second case study traces a series of regulatory reforms over the course of the 1960s, culminating in the creation of the global ceiling system in 1970. The chapter’s third case study is the Three Circles Policy which sought to reconcile the diplomatic imperative of free movement of European workers with the populist calls for closure. The chapter’s final case study examines policy making in the 2000s as the Swiss government opted for a treaty-based approach to market integration, followed by the 2008 immigration act which codified the policy changes enacted through bilateral treaties and executive directives over the previous years. In 2014, Swiss voters adopted the Mass Immigration Initiative which presented policy makers with the impossible choice between legislating the people’s will or maintaining its bilateral treaties with the European Union.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicMigration, Refugees, and Integration→French-language works237,207→