Notice bibliographique
Résumé
During last quarter of 20th Century, many Haitians left their homeland in search of a better life, elsewhere. Because they left for a variety of reasons--social, and political--it is difficult to place them all in a single category. Based upon pull and push factors which caused them to leave they are usually referred to as economic or Regardless of name given to them, they are among most abused in our society, having undergone extraordinary distress in their efforts to reach host country and sometimes having suffered equal hardship upon their arrival. The public exposure of their plight has brought about an international outcry both from governmental and non-governmental organizations. This paper will assess international concern shown for Haitian migrants in United States, Dominican Republic and Bahamas. Haitians in United States Historically, United States has been accused of pursuing a racist policy in regard to granting of refugee status (USCCR, 1-19); therefore, it was surprising that some of international human rights organizations questioned its attitude toward Haitian migrants. Such a challenge took place June 22, 1979 when International Human Right Law Group (US) complained to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of Organization of American States (OAS) concerning treatment of Haitian refugees. According to petition, which was filed on behalf of National Council of Churches, the procedures employed by United States in handling claims of these Haitian refugees violated regional and international commitments which U.S. has undertaken. It was accused of failing to observe obligations which it assumed as a result of its membership in OAS, and as a signatory of American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man (Declaration), and American Convention on Human Rights (Convention). The petition cited Article XXVII of Declaration, which binds U.S. not only to act in accordance with its domestic laws in granting asylum to those seeking it, but must also act in accordance with international agreements, including Protocol Relating to Status of Refugees (IHRLG, 2). Specifically, United States was accused of: * Depriving Haitian nationals seeking asylum in U.S. of their rights to equal protection and to life and liberty. * Depriving Haitian refugees of their rights to due process. * Discriminating against Haitian nationals on basis of their country of origin. * Denying Haitian effective access to U.S. courts due to harassment and other actions which interfere with legal representation. * Returning Haitian refugees to Haiti where their lives or freedom are threatened on basis of political opinion (IHRLG, 9). Although IACHR normally does accept cases until domestic remedies have been exhausted, petitioner suggested that a waiver of this requirement be made, inasmuch as once domestic remedies have been exhausted, Haitian refugee seeking political asylum in U.S. is subject to immediate deportation and is placed in imminent peril of violations to his personal security and safety upon refoulement to Haiti (IHRLG, 11). Although State Department questioned right of IACHR to consider issue, it agreed to allow Commission to undertake an on-site investigation of situation, if it decided that such was needed. The United States assured IACHR that if such an investigation was made, it would do everything possible to facilitate effort (USDS, 4). In a memorandum to IACHR, International Human Rights Law Group suggested that in case original petition was declared inadmissible because of nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, Commission should conduct a study and issue a report on situation of Haitian refugees in United States. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».