Migrant minors in detention: Practical needs and the limits set by the European Convention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
State officials report practical needs to put migrant minors in detention, and the European Convention on Human Rights sets legal limits on this practice. This article defines the scope of circumstances under which migrating minors may be detained by analyzing The European Court of Human Rights case law, using judgments in which the detention of migrant minors has been alleged a violation of Articles 3, 5.1, or 8. It also explores states’ needs for detaining such children, using data from 19 interviews with Swedish police officers, and compares these views with the case law. Police interviewees primarily describe two needs to detain children: to make deportations of children smooth and dignified, and to prevent minors from committing crimes. The investigation finds that migrant minor detentions are rarely permissible according to the Convention—especially under Article 3—and that the permissible scope is too small to meet the expressed practical needs. The actors involved in the issue of detaining migrant minors might have different perspectives on the issue, but they must not lose sight of the fact that these children are categorized as some of the most vulnerable in society and that their rights must be protected.
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 | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".