MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283706358 · doi:10.1080/13621025.2022.2091228

Precarious legal status trajectories as method, and the work of legal status

2022· article· en· W4283706358 on OpenAlexafffund
Luin Goldring

Bibliographic record

VenueCitizenship Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCitizenshipLegal statusContext (archaeology)JurisdictionSociologyWork (physics)Inclusion (mineral)Political scienceLawLaw and economicsCriminologyGender studiesPoliticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critiques of ‘fantasy citizenship’ include calls to migrantize the citizen and denationalize citizenship and migration studies. In response, this essay proposes ‘precarious legal status trajectories (PLSTs) as method’, with a focus on the work of legal status. This approach captures changes in sociolegal status trajectories, including illegalization, and builds a ‘thicker’ approach to trajectories. The work of status refers to effort, time, money, and other resources devoted to being present in a jurisdiction, and/or gain access to services and protections. The approach also considers work that does not produce changes and is not counted, and interactions with other actors. This contributes to understanding how precarious legal status trajectories are assembled and contribute to inequalities in citizenship and dynamics of differential inclusion. It migrantizes the citizen in a context where the share of citizens who were precarious noncitizens continues to rise, and when methodological nationalism occludes PLSTs.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.081
Scholarly communication0.0090.015
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCitizenship StudiesSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207