Reception And Inclusion Of Refugees: Insights For Catalonia From Canada, Portugal, And Sweden, Gritim-Upf Policy Series, No. 6
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report documents and builds on the “International Symposium on the Reception and Inclusion of Refugees”, held on 14 June 2017 in Barcelona. Experts from Canada, Portugal, and Sweden, along with the Catalan Government, the Public Diplomacy Council of Catalonia, and Pompeu Fabra University came together to discuss best practices and challenges, with the goal of strengthening the design and implementation of policies and strategies to improve the situation of refugees in Catalonia. The key questions the Symposium participants were asked to consider were: How can we mobilize citizens in general, and the economic, cultural and social sectors in particular, to work with a collaborative logic? What are the conditions to take advantage of the economic and social opportunities offered to refugees in host societies (institutional conditions, resource conditions, legal conditions, etc.)? How do civil society actors and all levels of public administration participate in the process of reception and inclusion of refugees in our society, and how can this be articulated at different levels of government? How to manage public opinion and potential prejudices towards refugees and how to articulate a political narrative and pro-active social discourse? Common themes emerging from the symposium discussions included the importance of facts, memory, and opinion, the need to adopt a values-centred approach, and the relevance of the categories employed in refugee policy and discourse. Based on all of this, we offer a “toolkit” of 10 key dimensions that may be drawn on in formulating and refining Catalan refugee policy: Construct the intellectual foundations from the history and experience of forced migration out of Catalonia and of the recent immigration into the territory. Use the human tower metaphor for working together, including multidimensional cooperation and coordination among actors and sectors. Work toward and manage political consensus. Make public engagement a core part of the policy. Employ a strong media communication strategy Work for a holistic refugee policy Consider refugee policies as part of the mainstream migration system Ensure a long-term inclusion strategy and evaluation Include an external dimension of refugee policy. Facilitate knowledge formation throughout the process
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".