Independent human rights documentation and sexual minorities: an ongoing challenge for the Canadian refugee determination process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual minorities must meet the same evidentiary burden as all other refugee claimants. Independent country information produced by international human rights organisations plays an important role in meeting this burden. However, in the case of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender claimants, existing country documentation still fails to provide the kind of information refugees need to support their claims. This is due to the continual struggle of human rights organisations to properly document abuses against sexual minorities. Also, the legal questions most relevant to claims based on sexual orientation and gender identity have shifted over the last 15 years. Early cases turned on whether a claimant's fear of persecution was well founded or whether the claimants were able to prove their sexual orientation. Recent cases have focused on the distinction between persecution and discrimination, the availability of state protection, and possible regional contrasts in the treatment of sexual minorities within a country. The shift in legal issues requires evidence that is either not available or is not sufficiently focused or detailed to meet the legal requirements of the Canadian refugee determination process.
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 | 0.104 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.071 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".