Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the traumatic events in the United States on 11 September 2001 and the immediate heightened security response by the international community and states, many human rights and refugee advocates, analysts and commentators noted that the new security measures introduced by states would limit human rights and severely constrain refugees' access to asylum. There was also widespread concern that Article 1F(a), the exclusion clauses, of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which apply to those suspected, for serious reasons, of committing crimes against peace, war crimes or crimes against humanity, would be applied and interpreted liberally to limit further the number of refugees. This article examines this proposition in relation to Canada by examining a number of Article 1F(a) cases decided by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) and the Federal Court (Canada) since 9/11. Non-random samples of refugee law cases were drawn from the IRB's Reflex publication and from the Federal Court's (Canada) website. From the twenty-six IRB refugee decisions and the twenty-three Federal Court (Canada) appeal judgments analyzed, it was found that there were no discernable differences in the manner that Article 1F(a) cases were being decided by either the IRB or the Federal Court (Canada) after 9/11. Cases involving Article 1F(a) remain amongst the most difficult and complex for refugee law decision makers and appeal judges to decide, not only because they require the application and interpretation of international humanitarian and criminal law, but because they also involve the refugee claimant's or appellant's alleged complicity in these heinous international crimes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".