IS THERE REFUGE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES WITHIN THE 1951 CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it