MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409220180 · doi:10.1080/13698230.2025.2489241

The burdens of jurisdiction and the alleged right to exclude unwanted migrants

2025· article· en· W4409220180 on OpenAlex
Arash Abizadeh

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionLawPolitical scienceLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Joseph Carens is well known for his defence of a general human right to freedom of interstate migration. Michael Blake, by contrast, has argued that, precisely because of the existence of human rights, states have the presumptive right coercively to prevent migrants from entering their territorial jurisdiction; as such, there is no human right to migration. Blake argues that, because states have a moral obligation to protect and fulfil the human rights of all persons in their territory but not elsewhere, when migrants enter a state’s territory, they impose new obligations on it that it did not previously have. He argues, moreover, that because to impose obligations is to impose new burdens, we have a right to refuse to have new obligations imposed on us without our consent. I show that Blake’s argument misconstrues the logical structure of conditional human-rights obligations, and that, once properly construed, it becomes clear that immigrants do not impose new human-rights obligations on states in virtue of their entry.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.349 · 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