MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411972526 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2025.2504880

The Use of Social Media in Irregular Migration and Migrant Smuggling: A Qualitative Study in Türkiye

2025· article· en· W4411972526 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Özlem Özdemir, Bülent Baykal, Elif Başak SARIOĞLU

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiaspora, migration, transnational identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchSocial mediaPolitical scienceEconomic geographySociologyEconomicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the advancement of digital communication technologies, social media has become a critical platform for both irregular migrants and migrant smugglers. This medium directly impacts the mobility of irregular migration, making the battle against migrant smuggling and irregular migration in cyberspace a critical issue not only at a national but also at an international scale. Therefore, understanding how smugglers use social media is a pressing research priority. This study aims to uncover the purposes and methods of social media use by irregular migrants and migrant smugglers along migration routes. The research was conducted using semi-structured interview techniques with law enforcement officials, irregular migrants under administrative detention, and migrant smugglers who have been prosecuted for migrant smuggling crimes. A total of thirty-four people were interviewed in-depth. The results indicate that migrant smugglers actively use social media to communicate with irregular migrants and organize illegal crossings. Law enforcement agencies, in turn, track these digital traces to identify smuggling networks. However, the constantly evolving methods of migrant smugglers and their use of encrypted communication remain one of the biggest challenges faced by law enforcement.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicDiaspora, migration, transnational identityFrench-language works237,207