Migratory justice and global inequalities: the new juridico-political category of climate refugees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, I will examine IOM’s recurrent stance on how more measures areneeded to protect climate migrants and climate refugees around the world andits relationships with both new research lines on climate migrants beingcreatedand developed by migration research institutes around the globe (from NewZealand to Germany and Canada) and the debate around the need for therecognition of a new juridico-political category (or a specific juridicalprotection status): the so-called “climate refugees”. The concept of climaterefugees corresponds to a new juridico-political category, or to a specificprotection status, which is still not internationally recognized norharmonized.This discussion has been deepened over the last few years, in the face of: a largenumber of natural disasters and other ecological and environmentalcatastrophes, as well as more visible, mediatized and increased migratorymovements associated with them (Berchin et al., 2017; Carević and Novokmet,2021; Hiraide, 2022). This is a qualitative and interpretative research, based onextensive literature review on this topic, content, legal, document and criticalanalysis. I argue that integral human development (IHD, 1967-2018) and itscorrelative concept of integral ecology (Francis, 2015; Hodges et al., 2018) canprovide a useful framework to rethink and expand, in a more comprehensive andhumanist manner, the concept of “climate refugees”. Additionally, severalauthors point out that a leading role could (and should) be taken by the EuropeanUnion in determining the international recognition of the new juridico-politicalcategory of “climate refugees”. Pondering the contributions by Wilcox (2021),Brock (2019), Rockström et al. (2009), Steffen et al. (2015), De Tavernier &Ndubueze (2020) and the glossary MECLEP (2014), I conclude by proposingmy own personal definition for the new juridico-political category of “climaterefugee”.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".