Institutional Racism and Refugee Policies of the West: The Numbers Do Not Lie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article demonstrates that the Universal Human Right to asylum is not uniformly guaranteed to all asylum seekers pursuing refuge in Western countries. Specifically, many Western countries accept fewer asylum seekers than might be expected based on their population size. Moreover, there are a number of Western countries that demonstrate a clear bias against asylum seekers originating from Africa and the Middle East; people who are attempting to escape extremely dire circumstances. To arrive at these conclusions, a tripartite approach was implemented. First, elaborations were made on the existing theoretical foundations used by the West that frame the refugee as not "Our Kind of People" or "Our Kind of Color." Second, a mathematical assessment was applied to quantify the forcibly displaced persons from around the world using data extracted from the UNHCR that factually evidences this bias. Lastly, qualitative assessments were made that examined the policy and practices that govern the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in select Western countries, including Australia, Türkiye, Palestine, the European Union, Canada, and the United States. These three lines unequivocally demonstrate the influence of institutional racism on the mass migration of people seeking asylum in Western Countries.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".