MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282554229 · doi:10.20935/al5393

Search and Rescue as an Instrument of Externalisation: A Report from the Central Mediterranean Sea, 2013 to 2017

2022· article· en· W4282554229 on OpenAlexaff
Kira Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademia Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMaritime Security and History
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterdictionSearch and rescueEurosMediterranean seaEuropean unionGeographyComputer scienceMediterranean climateOperations researchEnvironmental resource managementBusinessInternational tradeEngineeringArchaeologyArtificial intelligenceEconomicsHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European Union (EU) implemented a maritime interdiction network using search and rescue which interdicted at least 462,813 “illegal migrants” in the Central Mediterranean Sea between 2006 and 2015. This involved 15 discrete, militarised and semi-secret maritime interdiction operations (MIOs) at a minimum cost of 126.9 million 2014 Euros. In this dissertation, I will explore and map these operations and their geographies between 2006 and 2015. First, and based on the given existence of the European Patrols Network, I examine how this network came into being in the first place. This serves to show that the EU purposely created regular maritime interdiction operations using search and rescue to interdict migrants by 2006. This approach also justifies and underpins my subsequent analyses of their histories, functions and outcomes, all of which depend on the network having two specific properties. First: that the EPN was a system intentionally designed to internalise migrants and boa...

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademia LettersSame topicMaritime Security and HistoryFrench-language works237,207