MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408869963 · doi:10.1504/ijmbs.2024.10070197

The sanctuary spectrum: (re)imagining the sanctuary to come through the lens of higher education

2024· article· en· W4408869963 on OpenAlexaff
Tanya Aberman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Migration and Border Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLens (geology)Spectrum (functional analysis)Through-the-lens meteringOpticsArtSociologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we utilise an abolitionist lens to interrogate initiatives delivered under the auspices of 'sanctuary' within the higher education (HE) sector in order to (re)imagine it in this space. 'Sanctuary' is broadly understood to mean safety and protection - underpinned by the need to resist immigration control and create spaces of refuge for precarious migrants. The 'sanctuary spectrum' is a medium through which we explore conceptual thinking pertaining to sanctuary initiatives, centring on bordering, deservingness, care and solidarity, as it facilitates the inclusion of diverse perspectives and interpretations. Situating and analysing sanctuary initiatives in HE on this spectrum from an abolitionist framework allows exploration of the fluidity of their interpretation, as either actions that seek to radically change structures and inherent inequalities (non-reformist) or render existing structures tolerable (reformist). This offers the potential to connect existing and shape new strategies to build an inclusive abolitionist sanctuary movement.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.069
Scholarly communication0.0120.016
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Migration and Border StudiesSame topicReligious Tourism and SpacesFrench-language works237,207