MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7079706368 · doi:10.26108/rhy4-8p74

Re-conceptualising refugees as relative surplus populations

2001· article· en· W7079706368 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAcadiaU-DEV · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeOperationalizationMarxist philosophyArgument (complex analysis)Context (archaeology)Politics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The topic of study in this thesis is the relationship between refugees and the Canadian political economy. The central argument of this thesis is that both the production of refugees around the world and their reception in Canada are best understood as core processes of contemporary global capitalism/imperialism. Borrowing from and employing a critical Marxist political economy orientation, the phenomenon of refugees as relative surplus populations within a global capitalist system is critically examined. Relevant research on migration and refugees provides a general but clear picture of recent scholarly research on international migration and refugee phenomenon. Alternative approaches and disciplines are compared and a suitable context within which this research may be placed is established. Key notions in both Malthusian and Marxist theory are developed. Theoretical conceptions are operationalized to the literature reviewed, allowing for the situating and discussion of relevant key concepts. A case application of the theoretical framework and arguments developed above is made focusing on the Canadian political economy generally, and in terms of its refugee protection system specifically. A summary review of the path taken is presented, highlighting major points, assumptions and findings made, concluding with suggestions for what actions need be taken to ameliorate the situation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcadiaU-DEVSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207