Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of deporting non-citizens is subject to judicial review under several fields of public law. These fields—criminal law, constitutional law, and administrative law—arc towards the protection of the individual. And yet, a series of judicial interpretations place deportees on the margins of that otherwise protective arc. This marginalization is principally explained by the relationships between the fields: The “webbing” of public law joins the fields of criminal law, constitutional law, and administrative law together. Reading deportation cases laterally across these fields reveals that they function as mutual referents for one another, providing assurance that some other field will offer legal cover for the deportee, and buttressing the persistent divide between immigration law and other fields of public law. After examining the webbing as an intervening register in public law theory and practice, the article explores the judicial doctrine of deportation in each field and traces the content of the webbing between them.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".