MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285465185 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14639448.v1

Why We Should Use the Term Illegalized Immigrant

2021· preprint· en· W4285465185 on OpenAlexaff
Harald Bauder

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyImmigrationTerm (time)SanctionsPolitical scienceVice presidentLawPublic relationsLinguisticsSociologyManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The Associated Press (AP) recently announced an important change to its Stylebook: it “no longer sanctions the term ‘illegal immigrant’” (Colford, 2013; Morison, 2013). AP suggested alternative phrases, such as “person entering a country illegally” or “without legal permission” (Morison, 2013). While these phrases may be accurate, they are wordy, prompting AP’s Senior Vice President and Executive Editor, Kathleen Carroll, to project that suitable terminology will evolve “down the road” (Colford, 2013). In this Research Brief, I argue for the adoption of illegalized immigrant to fill the terminology gap.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMigration, Ethnicity, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207