Opposition to Refugee Resettlement: Comparative Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate global attitudes toward refugee resettlement via online public opinion surveys conducted in 10 countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In previous research conducted primarily in the United States (https://osf.io/wve96; https://osf.io/vb2uz), we have found consistent evidence of higher support for refugee resettlement at the international level than the national level, and higher support for refugee resettlement at the national level than the local level—evidence of not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) attitudes toward refugee resettlement. These patterns were largely robust across demographic and attitudinal subgroups. In this study, we examine NIMBY attitudes further, examining how they vary across a wider array of countries, as well as across additional demographic and attitudinal subgroups. By examining how attitudes towards refugees are correlated with the strength of NIMBYism, we also hope to shed light on the theoretical mechanism driving NIMBY attitudes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".