Introduction: Humanizing Studies of Refuge and Displacement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This forum of Refuge offers interventions around the theme Humanizing Studies of Refuge and Displacement? as a theoretical and methodological debate for critical refugee and forced migration scholarship. However, rather than proposing a conclusive path towards humanization—which encompasses complex processes of (re)building, (re)constructing, and (re)thinking “the human,” humanity, and social relations—our aim is more modest, tentative, and reflexive. Our starting point was a workshop co-organized by the authors and Patricia Daley at the University of Oxford in November 2018. The workshop brought together an interdisciplinary set of scholars to reflect collectively on dehumanizing tendencies in the ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies underpinning scholarship on refugees today, and to think through, beyond, and against them. \nTaking this event as an entry, we use humanization as a heuristic to accommodate multiple contradictory versions of what more emancipatory scholarship might entail. We are not only concerned with tracing, traversing, and pondering over our positionalities and epistemic complicities, or charting “the border between theory and activism” (Lafazani, 2012; Torres, 2018). Instead, we actively seek to practise and advance a radical scholarship that is grounded in political solidarity for social and racial justice. To do so means grappling with, and situating ourselves and our scholarly institutions within, abiding structures of violence and erasure that are—sometimes slowly, sometimes more spectacularly—perpetrating the very ontological destruction of people on the move that we are desperately trying to combat.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".