MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249324950 · doi:10.1386/cjmc.6.2.159_1

‘They Don’t Want Foreigners’: Zimbabwean migration and the rise of xenophobia in Botswana

2015· article· en· W4249324950 on OpenAlexaff
Eugene K. Campbell, Jonathan Crush

Bibliographic record

VenueCrossings Journal of Migration and Culture · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican studies and sociopolitical issues
Canadian institutionsBalsillie School of International Affairs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXenophobiaHarassmentRefugeeDenialCriminologyPolitical scienceDevelopment economicsHuman rightsPolitical economySociologyRacismPsychologyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Xenophobia is becoming an increasingly common response to migration within the Global South, often taking the form of collective violence against migrants and refugees. It has also permeated central and local state structures leading to systemic discrimination, denial of basic rights and constant harassment of migrants and refugees. For a decade or more, South Africa has been plagued by xenophobic violence directed at Zimbabweans living in the country. Botswana is another major destination for Zimbabwean migrants but has not experienced violent attacks motivated by xenophobia. This does not mean that Zimbabweans are welcome in that country. On the contrary, xenophobic attitudes are highly prevalent amongst the citizenry and within government and manifested in a range of negative stereotypes. This article documents the rise of xenophobia in Botswana and provides empirical evidence from research with Zimbabwean migrants in Gaborone and Francistown of how xenophobia is actually experienced by its targets. In order to explain the existence of xenophobia in Botswana, usually considered one of Africa’s most stable, economically prosperous and stable countries, the article draws on the literature on new nationalisms in Africa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrossings Journal of Migration and CultureSame topicAfrican studies and sociopolitical issuesFrench-language works237,207