MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406471283 · doi:10.1111/imig.13376

The World Bank's 2023 world development report: A missed opportunity to recognize that all migrants have rights

2025· article· en· W4406471283 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ian M. Kysel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Migration · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEidgenössisches Departement für Auswärtige AngelegenheitenWorld Bank Group
KeywordsPolitical scienceDevelopment economicsEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2023 World Development Report (WDR, 2023), Migrants, Refugees, and Societies, is a vast resource-intended by its author as a 'message of hope' (World Bank, 2023: 15)-for policymakers responding to human migration across international borders and seeking to understand that 'well-managed' migration can be a 'powerful force for prosperity' (Ibid).The World Bank's focus on this topic is welcome.A greater focus on human rights would have enhanced its message.While the report makes general reference to international human rights law and its application to protect migrants' rights, as well as to those protections due to migrants under international refugee law, the WDR 2023's treatment of rights overall is muddled and surprisingly limited.Most concerning, the report does not clearly take the view that all migrants have a set of basic human rights.It does argue, however, that migration contributes most to prosperity when migrants are given basic rights and social protections within host states.This is an important message for policymakers but begs the question of how widely these and other rights and protections are enforced, and thus how politically complex it might be to put this view into practice.As set out below, the short shrift given to international law also cloud's the report's effort to develop novel categorizations of migrants.In addition, new findings from the Migrant Rights Database (MRD), 1 hosted at Cornell University with the support of its Migrations Initiative, help contextualize the WDR 2023's findings and recommendations as they intersect with human rights law (Migrant Rights Initiative, 2023).MRD data show that while it is now possible to evaluate the rights protections of migrants in national law across countries, regardless of their legal status, states are only doing a middling job protecting labour, health and education rights, the social protections on which the WDR 2023 focuses on in some detail.These data thus reinforce the WDR 2023s emphasis on the importance of securing such rights and social protections in order to ensure the prosperity gains from migration can be more broadly enjoyed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational MigrationSame topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207