Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines marriage fraud to bypass immigration restrictions. It assesses media representations of marriage fraud for the purpose of immigration in Canada and Germany between 2000-2019. Paper marriages refer to a marriage which is not bonafide but is done to get residency status in a country by at least one of the partners. In this study, I will examine the media’s role as an agency that both shapes and reflect public opinion on this issue. I am interested in understanding what led to the rise of the discourse of paper marriages? Is this an attempt to bypass tightening of immigration rules, or is it because of the rising tide of xenophobia and distrust to foreigners? I will also examine two competing perspectives on paper marriages. The first approach looks negatively and sees paper marriages as a form of deceit or fraud. The other, takes a more compassionate perspective and sees it as an attempt to help others gain residency status. I will examine the role of the media as a moral entrepreneur in creating “moral panic” about immigration fraud. Keywords: Paper marriages, marriage migration, marriages of convenience, marriage fraud, moral panic, moral entrepreneurs, opinion leaders.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".