MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414206543 · doi:10.55843/isl2025symp245b

DIGITALIZATION AND GLOBAL MIGRATION: DATA SECURITY, ETHICS, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

2025· article· en· W4414206543 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dinara BARMANBEKOVNA

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Economy and Work Transformation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsData Protection Act 1998ConventionSoft lawHard lawCorporate governanceGlobal governanceInternational lawAdaptabilityGeneral Data Protection Regulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid digitalisation of migration governance has transformed how states manage mobility, security, and border control. From biometric databases and AI-driven decision-making systems to blockchain-based digital identities, these innovations promise efficiency, cost reduction, and enhanced risk assessment. However, they also introduce significant human rights challenges, particularly regarding privacy, due process, and equality before the law. This article examines the evolving interplay between emerging migration technologies and international legal standards, with a focus on the balance between security imperatives and the protection of migrant rights. Drawing on case studies such as the EU’s Eurodac system, Canada’s algorithmic visa processing, and UNHCR’s digital identity projects, the analysis identifies risks of algorithmic bias, discriminatory profiling, and mass surveillance. Legal frameworks, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Council of Europe’s Convention 108, are assessed for their adaptability to the digital era. The study also explores positive applications, such as AI-assisted legal aid and humanitarian logistics planning, which highlight the potential for ethical innovation. Policy recommendations emphasise the need for a Digital Migrant Rights Charter, mandatory human oversight in algorithmic decision-making, and the adoption of transparent, auditable AI systems. Technological safeguards, including homomorphic encryption and open-source development, are proposed to protect sensitive migrant data while ensuring accountability. A multi-stakeholder governance approach—integrating governments, technology providers, civil society, and international organisations—is advocated as essential for aligning technological progress with international human rights obligations. By situating the debate within both ethical and legal contexts, the article contributes to the emerging discourse on responsible digital governance in migration, underscoring that technological innovation must be guided by principles that preserve human dignity in an increasingly data-driven world.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Economy and Work TransformationFrench-language works237,207