MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283276443 · doi:10.18357/bigr32202220573

Israeli Policy Toward African Asylum Seekers and Unauthorized Migrants

2022· article· en· W4283276443 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laçin İdil Öztığ

Bibliographic record

VenueBorders in Globalization Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelocationRefugeePolitical scienceLawImmigrationIrregular migrationHuman rightsSupreme courtGovernment (linguistics)CriminologyFence (mathematics)Immigration detentionSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article sheds light on Israel’s practices against African asylum seekers and unauthorized immigrants. Since the mid-2000s, Israel has received a large influx of undocumented people from African countries. In order to curb unauthorized border crossings, Israel reached an agreement with Egypt for the return of unauthorized border crossers into Egypt, started building a border fence, and increased the number of detention centers. The 2012 amendment to the 1954 infiltration law made it so that any irregular border crosser was considered an infiltrator and therefore, detained. In 2015, Israel announced its forcible relocation policy. After examining asylum and migration dynamics in Israel and the governmental responses, this article identifies the pivotal roles played by Israeli human rights organizations and the Supreme Court in thwarting the government’s detention and forcible relocation policies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorders in Globalization ReviewSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207