MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sanctuary movements

2013· other· en· W4246145595 on OpenAlex
Randy K. Lippert

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration · 2013
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeportationRefugeeState (computer science)Political scienceImmigrationLawElement (criminal law)CriminologyHistorySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Contemporary sanctuary movements are organized, collective efforts to provide physical protection to migrants facing arrest and deportation by state authorities in receiving countries. Medieval sanctuary practiced by the Christian church was a permanent element of a legal system and protection was extended to felons, fleeing serfs, and debtors (Morgenstern 2009). Such provisions were later appropriated by the modern state in Europe and were essential to the development of early modern criminal law (Shoemaker 2010). Only in the late 1970s did sanctuary movements and their practices develop a strong connection to protecting asylum‐seekers from arrest and deportation in receiving countries rather than other kinds of fugitives. The defining practices of these movements first became manifest in the UK (see Weller 1987: 10). But it was during 1982 and 1983, and then sporadically during the next three decades, that sanctuary practices ostensibly stemming from Christian churches emerged fully in the US, Canada, and Western Europe, including Germany, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, and Finland (see Lippert 2006: 4). These practices arose amid a dramatic increase in the number of asylum‐seekers in the West, and a corresponding escalation of national and international efforts to discourage and control their arrival, including the use of physical arrest and deportation.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.282 · 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