MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502938431 · doi:10.25071/1918-6215.23385

IS THERE REFUGE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES WITHIN THE 1951 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES?

2009· article· en· W1502938431 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gillian Parekh

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Disability Discourses · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeConventionPolitical sciencePsychologyGerontologyLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forms of oppression affecting specific social groups such as women and people with disabilities are demanding international address and rights protection for those deemed persecuted and oppressed. In 1951, the United Nations developed the Refugee Convention, which has remained largely unchanged since its inception and has neglected to incorporate protection of newly recognized social groups. Recently, Canadian immigration and refugee laws have begun to develop legislation to address these issues, specifically in regards to gender-related persecution. By examining Canadian federal amendments to refugee and immigration law and United Nations documents developed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this paper will argue that an amendment protecting persons facing disability-related oppression is in keeping with current Canadian values and means. Supportive documents emphasize the legal benefits of people with disabilities identifying as members of a unique social group that would then require the recognition of the widespread international incidence of disability-specific oppression and persecution. Implementation of a disability-related amendment to the 1951 Refugee Convention would not only create asylum opportunities for those fleeing regimes that practise or propagate disability persecution and oppression, but would create further awareness of the international community's intolerance of such practices.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.032
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Disability DiscoursesSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207