MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319342492 · doi:10.1093/ojls/gqad001

From the Inside Out: The Coercive Power of Deportation and the Erosion of the Liberal Democratic State

2023· article· en· W4319342492 on OpenAlexaff
Asha Kaushal

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Journal of Legal Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeportationPrinciple of legalityPolitical scienceState (computer science)LawVirtueDemocracyPower (physics)Law and economicsImmigrationSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Deportation is the expulsion of a non-citizen from the territory of a state by force or coercion. Largely because it is perceived to be a necessary extension of the state’s immigration power, deportation carries the same prerogative force, benefits from the same sweeping ambit of executive discretion and is subject to the same diminished scrutiny. Deportation is, however, a distinct legal phenomenon. Present on state territory, deportees are simultaneously subject to the state’s laws by virtue of their territorial presence and excluded from the state’s liberal democratic values of legality and fundamental rights by virtue of their status. Deportation practices create spaces inside the state where these values do not reach. As a ‘spectacular state power’ that acts inside the state, deportation bears a higher justificatory burden. The failure of states to adequately discharge this justificatory burden interrupts the integrity of legality on the inside and erodes their liberal democratic character.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.074
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.006
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicHistorical and Contemporary Political DynamicsFrench-language works237,207