Beyond left-right cleavages: making sense of refugees within the fields of struggle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current scholarship often links anti-migrant sentiment with right-wing populism. Yet this view cannot explain cases where leftist parties and their supporters exhibit stronger anti-migrant sentiments than their right-wing counterparts. In Turkey, research shows that right-wing AKP supporters are more pro-refugee than left-wing CHP supporters. Based on 30 semi-structured interviews with Istanbul residents, this paper explores how AKP and CHP supporters make sense of refugees and refugee politics. I find that (1) political party competitions influence voters' views on refugees, but these views do not simply mirror the parties' polarized positions. More significantly, (2) socioeconomic struggles shape distinct views on refugees, even among ideologically like-minded individuals, and (3) global power struggles can unite ideologically distinct (even antagonistic) groups around anti-refugee sentiment. Thus, traditional left-right ideologies alone cannot explain citizens' views on refugees. Instead, party competitions, socioeconomic inequalities, and the global order play a significant role in shaping citizens' views on refugees.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".