MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regional Refugee Regimes

2021· book-chapter· en· W3168308720 on OpenAlexaff
Marina Sharpe

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College Saint-Jean
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeHuman rightsPolitical scienceTreatyCommissionInternally displaced personInternational human rights lawCharterRefugee lawConventionEuropean unionLinguistic rightsLawRight to propertyInternational tradeBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter highlights the African approach to refugees, analysing the regional legal framework anchored by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Convention. The regional legal regime for refugees includes treaty and institutional components. The treaty framework is comprised of the Refugee and OAU conventions and international and regional human rights law, including but not limited to the two covenants, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and African instruments on the rights of women and children. The chapter then addresses regional organizations with relevant mandates: African Union (AU) bodies and judicial organs including the AU Commission, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. It also looks at the role of civil society, as well as contemporary refugee protection achievements and challenges. These include the implementation, in terms of both refugee status determination and rights, of the regional legal framework in national jurisdictions; the rise of displacement in the context of climate change and disasters; and the relationship between European Union policy responses to the so-called migration crisis and refugee protection in Africa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207