Temporary Workers and Future Immigration Policy Conflicts: Protecting U.S. Workers and Satisfying the Demand for Global Human Capital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
See Rodino, supra note 26, at 253 & n.26.The structure for notification to the Department of Labor made the Department of Labor's role largely advisory rather than an enforcement mechanism to protect U.S. labor.1, See id.Other opportunities for abuse existed because the Department of Labor exclusionary certification was usually limited to one city and one occupation, therefore an individual might be permitted to enter in an oversubscribed occupation and location if destined for a nearby geographical location, which ultimately might have the effect of increasing employees in the oversubscribed location, e.g. retail sales employees were excluded from New York City, but then noncitizens could be admitted to nearby Westchester County or New Jersey and find employment in New York City.' See Act of October 3, 1965, Pub.L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat.911 (Immigration and Nationality Act, amendments)."' Rodino, supra note 26, at 254.Interestingly, the presumption existed that professionals and individuals with exceptional ability in the sciences or arts did not adversely affect wages and working conditions because no job offer was required in the labor certification process for these individuals, although all other noncitizens were required to possess an offer of employment.s See id at 255.Ultimately the 1965 amendments included a 120,000 numerical ceiling on Western Hemisphere immigration that went into effect on July 1, 1968.This ceiling reduced immigration from Canada, Central America, and South America but did not reduce immigration from Mexico and the West Indies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".