Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article deals with the history of immigration control of the Swedish government and issues of immigrants in this country in the last decades. Castles and Miller (1993, pp.196～198) classifies countries of immigration into three groups. The first group is classical countries of immigration such as the USA, Canada and Australia, the second is ex-colonial powers such as UK, France and the Netherlands, and the third is countries which adopted guest worker system. According to Castles and Miller (1993), Sweden is included into the first group, although the historical background is very different from the USA and the others. On the other hand, there are only a few articles on the immigrants in Sweden in the Japanese language such as Okazawa (1996) and Takezaki (1994; 1997). They refer only to the positive aspects of the situation of immigrants in Sweden, The author verifies the positive image on the immigration policy and the immigrants in this country on the basis of his own research activity in September 1998 as well as articles and statements of Swedish scholars and officials of the central and local governments. Immigration policy of the Swedish government is not so consistent as the classical countries of immigration and the degree of regulation is not so hard as countries of guest worker system. Nevertheless, the pattern of fluctuation of the number of immigrants resembles the one in a typical country of guest worker system. Many foreigners came to Sweden as temporal workers in the period between the last half of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1970s. Because of recession, immigration of temporal workers has not been allowed since 1972 with the exception of people from Nordic countries. The temporal workers rejoined their family members from their home countries, and more and more immigrants have become to consist of refugees and asylum seekers from the Third World. Many immigrants have settled down in Sweden regardless of the types of immigration: temporal workers, refugees and asylum seekers. The rati
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".