Assessing the Criteria for Equality of the Right: Refugees’ Higher Education from the Perspective of Human Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the Syrian refugee crisis, the subject of refugees’ access to HE, which was only partially funded owing to donor reluctance, was prominently covered in the news, with concepts such as preventing the lost generation, resilience, reconstructing countries, and education as a human right. With the Ukraine crisis, the issue of supporting the higher education of refugees came to the fore again. By 2030, the UNHCR plans to have 30 per cent of refugees enrolled in HE. Although primary education is a right guaranteed by international agreements, equality of refugees’ right to higher education depends on some criteria. Through document analysis, this paper aims to examine the criteria for equality of the right to access to higher education in the context of human rights. International regulations, UNHCR’s education strategies and country policies are examined. Data were categorized into four groups as equality of the right and equal opportunities: success, legal statuses, state’s institutional support and donor support. The policies of Canada, Germany, Turkey and the United Kingdom are examined. Addressing refugee higher education within the scope of human rights only supports the availability of the service. Success and legal status are the criteria for ensuring the equality of the right. The access to higher education right and the provision of financial support only to recognized refugees will create inequality for groups such as asylum seekers who are not legally refugees. The support of countries and donors are necessary to ensure equal opportunities for refugees to access higher education. Furthermore, refugees’ access to higher education can be seen as a long-term and global strategy that should be supported by economic and social reasons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".