Artificial Intelligence for a Reduction of False Denials in Refugee Claims
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deciding refugee claims is a paradigm case of an inherently uncertain judgment and prediction exercise. Yet refugee status decision-makers may underestimate the uncertainty inherent in their decisions. A feature of recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) is the ability to make uncertainty visible. By making clear to refugee status decision-makers how uncertain their predictions are, AI and related statistical tools could help to reduce their confidence in their conclusions. Currently, this would only hurt claimants, since many countries around the world have designed their refugee status determination systems using inductive inference which distorts risk assessment. Increasing uncertainty would therefore contribute to mistaken rejections. If, however, international refugee law was to recognize an obligation under the UN Convention to resolve decision-making doubt in the claimant’s favour and use abductive inference, as Evans Cameron has advocated, then by making uncertainty visible, AI could help reduce the number of wrong denied claims.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 it