1,720,955 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Reimagining Affirmative Asylum
No full textIn 2022, the Biden Administration finalized regulations that overhauled procedures for asylum claims for the first time since 1996. These regulations transferred the duty to decide asylum claims in expedited removal from immigration courts to the Asylum Office. While advocates criticized the proposal for its extreme procedural deficiencies, they supported its basic premise: Expanding the jurisdiction of the Asylum Office would be a positive development for asylum seekers. This Article argues the Asylum Office has failed policymakers’ original vision for the asylum system, asylum seekers, and its own asylum officers (AOs) and that any expansion of the office, in its current form, is unwise. In the 1990s, policymakers settled upon the current asylum adjudication system for cost-saving and efficiency reasons. They believed that the Asylum Office would quickly grant meritorious asylum cases and refer frivolous or complicated cases to immigration court for further adjudication. They imagined affirmative grant rates would climb because quick adjudications by AOs and other features of the new system would discourage the filing of frivolous applications. Speedy grants at the Asylum Office would save money by reserving immigration judge (IJ) time for difficult cases. Creating a professional corps of AOs would also increase the quality and consistency of decision-making in the asylum system. This Article argues that each of these important assumptions has not panned out. The Asylum Office fails to grant many meritorious cases: In recent years, IJs granted asylum to between 76 and 83 percent of asylum seekers whom AOs had referred to removal proceedings. Grant rates across offices continue to deviate significantly, and the startling differences between office grant rates are growing. AOs face extraordinary pressure to adjudicate cases quickly. As a result, AOs are often very confrontational during interviews of asylum seekers, even though regulations require them to be “non-adversarial.” Former AOs further admitted to the author that they were more likely to refer an asylum seeker to removal proceedings simply because referring is faster than granting and they are evaluated on the speed at which they adjudicate cases. Given these failures, advocates and scholars should reimagine our affirmative asylum system. This Article begins that reimagination. </p
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
Recommended from our members
The Immigration Shadow Docket
No full textEach year, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)—the Justice Department’s appellate immigration agency that reviews decisions of immigration judges and decides the fate of thousands of noncitizens—issues about thirty published, precedential decisions. At present, these are the only decisions out of approximately 30,000 each year, that are readily available to the public and provide detailed reasoning for their conclusions. This is because most of the BIA’s decision-making happens on what this Article terms the “immigration shadow docket”—the tens of thousands of other decisions the BIA issues each year that are unpublished and nonprecedential. These shadow docket decisions are generally authored by a single BIA member and consist overwhelmingly of brief orders and summary affirmances. This Article demonstrates the harms of shadow docket decision-making, including the creation of “secret law” that is accessible to the government but largely inaccessible to the public. Moreover, this shadow docket produces inconsistent outcomes where one noncitizen’s removal order is affirmed while another noncitizen’s removal order is reversed—even though the deciding legal issues were identical. A 2022 settlement provides the public greater access to some unpublished BIA decisions, but it ultimately falls far short of remedying the transparency and accessibility concerns raised by the immigration shadow docket.
The BIA’s use of nonprecedential, unpublished decisions to dispose of virtually all cases also presents serious concerns for the development of immigration law. Because the BIA is the final arbiter of most immigration cases, it has a responsibility to provide guidance as to the meaning of our complicated immigration laws and to ensure uniformity in the application of immigration law across the nation. By publishing only 0.001% of its decisions each year, the BIA has all but abandoned that duty. This dereliction likely contributes to well-documented disparities in the application of immigration law by immigration adjudicators and the inefficiency of the immigration system that leaves noncitizens in protracted states of limbo and prolonged detention. This Article advances principles for reforms to increase transparency and fairness at the BIA, improve the quality, accuracy and political accountability of its decisions, and ensure justice for the nearly two million noncitizens currently in our immigration court system
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Recommended from our members
Terrorism and the Inherent Right to SelfDefense in Immigration Law
Get PDFThe Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) deems an individual inadmissible to the United States for having engaged in terrorist activity. Both “engaged in terrorist activity” and “terrorist activity” are terms of art that are broadly defined under the INA to include activity that courts, scholars, and advocates agree stretches the definition of terrorism. An individual found inadmissible on terrorismrelated grounds is barred from nearly all forms of immigration relief, including adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, refugee status, asylum, withholding of removal, and cancellation of removal. These INA provisions, meant to exclude terrorists from accessing immigration relief, have been perversely interpreted to deny relief to individuals who have taken actions in self-defense, although state and federal courts, state constitutions, and scholars alike describe selfdefense as a right so fundamental as to be inherent. There is no principled reason to deny noncitizens the right to present a selfdefense justification with respect to acts that may otherwise qualify as terrorist activity in the immigration context. In fact, when properly interpreted, the INA as currently written already excludes force used in self-defense from the definition of terrorist activity; the challenge lies in the fact that the current exclusion is too burdensome for adjudicators to apply properly and too narrow to shield all individuals who have taken actions in self-defense from being denied immigration relief. Given this perplexing state of affairs, Congress should adopt reforms to ensure that the government does not deny immigration relief to individuals who have exercised the most basic of rights—that of self-preservation. These reforms can accomplish two desired immigration law goals: excluding terrorists and providing protection to individuals fleeing persecution
- …
