MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128646219 · doi:10.26180/4975502.v1

Justifiable and unjustifiable cannons of migrant selection: a view of Australian sovereignty

2017· article· W7128646219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nobuaki Suyama

Bibliographic record

VenueMonash University · 2017
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupSovereigntyImmigrationSelection (genetic algorithm)DeportationSovereign state

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A visiting academic from Japan argues that nations such as Australia and Canada have fewer rights to use ethnic criteria in migrant selection policies than do the old countries of Europe and Asia. This is because they are not nation-states in the same sense as, for example, Japan and Germany. The difference is that there is no Australian (or Canadian) ethnicity and neither Australia nor Canada belongs to any particular ethnic group. Copyright. Monash University and the author/s

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.050
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonash UniversitySame topicAustralian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207