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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".