Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central contention of Valeria Ottonelli and Tiziana Torresi's book The Right Not to Stay is that some migrants, i.e. those who wish only to migrate on a temporary basis, require special rights in order to protect them and their capacity to achieve the goals that they have set for themselves.Such temporary movers can rightly be understood to have projects, that is to say life-shaping objectives, which can best or only be served by opportunities to migrate temporarily.It is the job of the liberal democratic state to offer such movers specific accommodations, to protect their capacity to be successful in these projects.The special accommodations that Ottonelli and Torresi defend are reasonable, I shall suggest, for migrants who are engaged in temporary labor migration projects as they describe them.However, I shall suggest, they are not as obviously appropriate for the projects of migrants whose temporary moves are not voluntary in the way Ottonelli and Torresi describe, nor for those who also migrate temporarily, but not for labor-related reasons, including international students, family caregivers, snowbirds and other retirees, and those who are protected by "Temporary Protected Status" or similar visas.In part, I argue, the mistake lies in a too narrow construal of what counts as a "project" in need of protection by the liberal state.I suggest that if the focus is on genuinely temporary movers, it is important to consider a wider range of them in order to best understand how a liberal democratic state ought to protect those who are temporarily in their midst either non-voluntarily, or for reasons other than tourism, in pursuit of a wider range of potential projects.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.021 |
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".