MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1813735170 · doi:10.25071/1920-7336.34358

Reforming the Canadian Refugee Determination System

2020· article· en· W1813735170 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Martin Collacott

Bibliographic record

VenueRefuge Canada s Journal on Refuge · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsFraser Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeePolitical scienceComprehensive Plan of ActionAccessionPoliticsConventionSupreme courtEconomic growthLawDevelopment economicsBusinessEconomicsEuropean unionEconomic policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If Canadian refugee policy is to serve interests of Canadians as well as those of genuine refugees in an effective manner, far more radical changes will be needed than have been attempted to date. They must include the introduction of robust safe third country designations, a review of the 1985 Singh decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and possible withdrawal by Canada of its accession to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Other measures should also be considered such as placing an annual limit on the intake of refugees from overseas combined with that of successful in-country asylum seekers as well as establishing provision for temporary refugee status in Canada in addition to permanent resettlement. Measures should be taken to return Canada to its role primarily as a resettlement country for refugees selected abroad and not one that accommodates large numbers of asylum seekers making claims on our territory. With strong public backing for major changes, political parties that oppose such reforms will do so at the risk of losing electoral support.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0300.012
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRefuge Canada s Journal on RefugeSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207