MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1932260610 · doi:10.25071/1920-7336.21319

L’étrange étranger: l’avenir incertain de l’immigration canadienne

2004· article· en· W1932260610 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kinga Janik

Bibliographic record

VenueRefuge Canada s Journal on Refuge · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeAgency (philosophy)ImmigrationFeelingPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)TerrorismConfusionPower (physics)SociologyLawPsychologySocial psychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article aims at presenting a reflection on the place to be accorded to refugees in the Canadian society, while at the same time being mindful of security considerations. The fear of new terrorist attacks has prompted North American governments to look inwards and has exacerbated negative feelings towards foreigners. This feeling weighs heavily against refugees. The confusion surrounding what categories of people are trying to cross the Canadian border renders even more insecure the fate of refugees who are seeking asylum in Canada through legitimate ways. This article deals mainly with the way certain government initiatives cast a negative light on refugees. More specifically, the author questions the direction taken by the new government that came into power on 12 December 2003, including the setting up of an agency for border services similar to the US Home Security agency.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0230.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRefuge Canada s Journal on RefugeSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207