Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter examines some of the ongoing challenges in the South Asian region and demonstrates the lacunae that persist with respect to conceptualizing displacement there. It explores protection mechanisms that have been established in the region as ad hoc alternatives to hegemonic protection norms, given the lack of a formal institutional approach there. The chapter provides some insights into whether a consistent and comprehensive regional approach to refugee protection can be identified based on past practices. As will be evident throughout, a South Asian regime for refugee protection can be conceived largely through individual State practice and through bilateral agreements. In fact, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation has construed refugee movement as a matter of bilateral or trilateral relations, and has regarded international agreements as constricting States’ freedom of action. The chapter then considers refugee movements in the region, discussing the ‘Eurocentrism’ of the global refugee regime that led to the establishment of a de facto framework of subcontinental defiance. It assesses UNHCR’s operational presence in South Asia and its impact on refugee protection. Finally, the chapter examines how national constitutional provisions have been interpreted in a way that provides some protection to refugees.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".