MIGRANTS AND MIGRATION IN AUSTRIA From Difference to Diversity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Complex modern democratic societies since the Second World War face the task of securing three public goods. These are legitimacy, economic welfare, and a viable sense of collective identity” (Benhabib 1996, 67). However, not all persons living on the territory of the political communities of such societies are entitled to participate in this public way of our pursuit of happiness. Now, who can claim to partake in those goods? Societies and their political organizations, the states, are bounded, and bounded is the membership and the privileges it awards. Denizenship is not granted automatically to all persons who want to enter the territory of a state. Citizenship is even more restricted. To many would-be migrants who do not qualify by economically or socially esteemed abilities, entrance into the society of their choice is denied. Even if they are allowed to enter, they may not participate in the social life and the political decision-making on an equal footing. Much depends nowadays upon their origin and not upon their personal qualities. It is remarkable what happens if rational criteria become salient for immigration policies: In Canada, “the establishment in 1967 of a point system for entry based on skills and reunion of families has not only increased the volume of immigrants but also diversified their places of origin ” (Brettell / Hollifield 2000, 1). What is a “Migration”?
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".