Actors and Their Networks: Scope for Adaptation to and Contestation of Global Norms for Refugee Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter analyses the extent of differential incorporation at domestic level of global norms and standards for asylum-seekers and refugees in Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Jordan, South Africa and Türkiye. The chapter identifies sources of variation and their effects on domestic level responses to global norms and standards associated with refugee protection. The Chapter identifies four potential domestic-level responses to global norms and standards: adoption, adaptation, resistance and rejection. It then provides empirical evidence combining network analysis supplemented by interviews with 99 elite actors in the six case countries with interviewees defined by their leadership role in relation to asylum and refugee governance. The Chapter identifies sources of variation in asylum/refugee governance and identifies: (i) variation in the meaning of protection; (ii) the important role played by IOs in mediating the relationship between the domestic and the international levels; (iii) scope for contestation of global norms; (iv) how contestation can lead both to watering-down of global norms and standards; and (v), in the case of Brazil, how protection standards can be upgraded at national level through use of regional norms and standards that are seen as more progressive than global norms and standards
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".