Information Directed Towards Migrants and the (Un)Making of Borders: An Interdisciplinary Perspective Between Countries of Origin, Transit, and Destination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Migration information campaigns and awareness-raising activities are increasingly used by Western governments as a "soft" tool of border enforcement in countries of origin, transit, and destination.Acting upon perceptions and aspirations, these information provision initiatives aim at convincing (potential) migrants to remain in or "voluntarily" return to their country of origin.As they rely on security and humanitarian rationales, they gather heterogenous actors whose practices oscillate between migration control and assistance.Yet, despite their apparently consensual nature, these initiatives bring out conflicting interests and generate contestations on the ground.In this perspective, this SI approaches information as a highly crowded and disputed field to grasp the complexity of power relationships in a restrictive migration context.Drawing on an interdisciplinary perspective, it investigates the discourses and norms conveyed by governmental initiatives that use information as a tool to control mobilities; the communication strategies defined by state and non-state actors to reach (potential) migrants; and the everyday practices deployed by migrants themselves to navigate this disputed information landscape.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".