Bibliographic record
Abstract
This issue comes out during a period of political drama in many of our readers' countries with a number of elections just past or soon to take place in Europe, with the effects of the US election taking more shape, and with many of these electoral dynamics being played out on the back of the issue of migration.The surprise election in the United Kingdom, although the government is seeking a clearer mandate to take that country out of the European Union, will inevitably be fought partly on the basis of immigration policy.Recent elections in continental Europe brought the possibility of governing anti-immigration populist parties to our doorstep, but none has yet succeeded.The effects of the Trump election victory in the United States are beginning to play out, if only from a fear of how the White House may act on immigration and refugee policy in the future.The current administration has spoken of large deportations of undocumented migrants including asylum seekers which, together with talk of constructing a wall across the southern border of the US and actions against those travelling from a subset of Muslim-majority countries, has created a sense of fear amongst many migrants, whether they are with or without legal authorization to reside in that country.Adding to this fear is the talk of actions against Sanctuary Cities in the US and some of the state governments that support them.Canada, which has long been relatively immune to flows of undocumented migrants, has seen a significant rise in the numbers of those crossing the border illegally, both those with legal residence in the US and those who are being smuggled from further afield.This is shaping up as a test of their Safe Third Country Agreement which, generally-speaking, allows each of the two countries to return asylum seekers to the country of first asylum.At issue now, according to some advocates, is the status of the US as a safe country.As these matters occupy national and local authorities, the international community continues with the process of drafting a Global Compact on Refugees and a separate Global Compact on Migration.States are developing their positions in preparation for what at times will be hard negotiations to reach agreements that have the potential to change how migration and asylum are managed around the world.Although these compacts will be non-binding, there will be expectations that those who commit to them will adhere to their principles.The stakes are high.Those of us in the academic community have both an opportunity and a responsibility to support this effort with analyses and advice to both the international organizations involved and their individual member states whose work will ultimately determine the outcome of the processes and the content of the two compacts.We hope that over the next few months some of our authors will submit to our journal analyses and empirically-grounded advice for those involved in these discussions and negotiations.We open this issue with a number of articles exploring various aspects of that ambiguous concept, 'integration'.What that term means varies tremendously from one country to another as well as from one theorist to another.What integration success or failure means also has many different accounts, and we will start with the question of whether onward migration is an indicator of integration failure or, perhaps, simply an indication of a new paradigm in migration patterns, that of multiple migration.Sapeha takes us to Australia in an exploration of onward migration from that country, one that collects an enviable amount of migration data including about exits.Schmid opens the link between integration and transnationalism and the implications that modern transnationalism poses for policy, both regarding migration and citizenship.Relatively little has been
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.375 | 0.238 |
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".