Actions speak louder than claims: humanitarian corridors, civil society and asylum policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resettlement of refugees in third countries has seen a growing intervention by various civil society actors in the last few years, starting from the Canadian experience. Also in Europe, these sponsorship schemes are developing, despite a general restriction of asylum policies. This paper will analyse a case of civil society's sponsorship, which has been developed in recent years by religious (Christian) institutions, first in Italy, then in other European countries (France, Belgium, Andorra, San Marino and recently Germany), in agreement with governments: what have been called ‘humanitarian corridors’. The paper will provide an evaluation of the project referred to arrivals from Ethiopia (more than 300 people), based on documents and interviews with key informants, volunteers and refugees. In particular, it will discuss the present outcomes of the project, together with its relationship with restrictive policies: how the cultural message of the project challenges borders closure for asylum-seekers. Studying such experience, this article also wants to discuss some general questions: What does this reception by CSOs have to do with a neoliberal vision of asylum and human rights? What are the potential benefits and the possible shortcomings of citizens’ and communities’ engagement in refugee reception?
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".