MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6966442569 · doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000745314

Digital internal bordering: surveillance, data-sharing, and the fate of sanctuary cities

2025· other· en· W6966442569 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRepository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeportationImmigrationInteroperabilityPopulationGovernment (linguistics)EnforcementSAFERPandemic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sanctuary cities worldwide claim to support precaritised migrants in response to exclusionary national policies. This paper is the first of its kind to analyse how digital technologies hinder the efficacy of sanctuary policies, potentially rendering them obsolete. Drawing on comparative evidence from the UK and Canada, it explores how digitally-driven responses to the COVID-19 pandemic by different government levels (local, regional, national) have impacted migrants' rights. Findings reveal that increasing interoperability among population databases has crucially enhanced immigration authorities' capacity to access sensitive data collected by local service providers, facilitating the detection, detention, and deportation of precaritised migrants. These practices of hostile data-sharing weaken pre-existing sanctuary protections that rely on limited cooperation between local and national officials. However, some local actors have deployed fresh counter-strategies, notably building non-interoperable data management infrastructures to ensure safer access to basic healthcare services. While prior research has examined digital transformations in immigration enforcement and welfare systems separately, this paper bridges these debates to reveal how digitisation tightens border controls within everyday urban life and what avenues of resistance remain available to migrant rights advocates.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.267 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueRepository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich)French-language works237,207