An Overview of Development of Gender Based Persecution in Refugee Law under Membership of a Particular Social Group: A Study of Comparative Jurisprudence of Canada, UK & USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refugees are the most vulnerable people in the world who flee from homeland for saving life because of well fear of being persecution according to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Reports say that women and child refugee are almost 80% of the total number of refugees. Critics also pointed out that international refugee law is conceptually narrow. It is only limited to particular classes of people that included race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group of people or political opinion, where women’s view, women’s persecution was neglected and thus it is difficult for a woman to claim and establish as a refugee. Later, UNHCR introduced several guidelines to overcome the limitation of international refugee law, in particularly for women refugees, who face gender based persecution because of her gender. Further, case laws and guidelines for the women refugees of different jurisprudences also contributed for the protection of women refugees. Now, application for claim of women refugee before the adjudicator is not neglected. Rights for women refugee are well settled at the present world. The aim of this paper is to critically discuss the landmark case laws of Canada, U.K. and U.S. who extremely contributed for the development of gender based refugee claim. And finally, there is a conclusion of the discussion. Keywords: Case, Convention, Discrimination, Female Genital Mutilation, Gender Based Persecution, Guidelines, Jurisprudence, Membership, Particular Social Group, Women.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".