Representations of Unwelcomed Children – Public Discussion in Helsingin Sanomat Newspaper about Finnish Children Living in Camp of al-Hol in Eastern Syria in 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we examine the representations of Finnish children living in the al-Hol refugee camp in Eastern Syria. Our data consists of materials published in 2019 in the Helsingin Sanomat, the largest subscription-based newspaper in Finland, which we analyzed using discourse analysis. As a result of our analysis, we identified and named three discourses representing children in al-Hol from different perspectives. These discourses are the victim and threat discourse, the legal discourse, and the problem discourse. In the victim and threat discourse, children were portrayed as both in need of assistance and as a potential security threat in the future both if brought to Finland, but also if they remained in the camp. In the legal discourse, bringing children to Finland was justified as a legal obligation, leaving aside other perspectives related to helping children. In the problem discourse, bringing children to Finland was described as highly problematic. Across all discourses, children were represented as unwelcome. This representation was strengthened by describing children through their mothers, justifying assistance as a necessary evil, and highlighting children’s connections to Isis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".