MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990371558 · doi:10.1353/hrq.0.0150

Advancing the Rights of Non-Citizens in Canada: A Human Rights Approach to Migrant Rights

2010· article· en· W1990371558 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tanya Basok, Emily F. Carasco

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Rights Quarterly · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Labor and Employment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsPolitical scienceInternational human rights lawAgency (philosophy)Transformative learningLawMigrant workersReservation of rightsRight to propertySociologyEconomic growthEconomicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Focusing on seasonal agricultural migrant workers in Canada, this article illustrates how local migrant rights activists have utilized different judicial fora to claim rights for non-citizen migrant workers under the international human rights framework. The article underscores the role of litigation by activists who, citing international norms and conventions, claim that protections provided by domestic constitutional provisions and labor laws should be extended to non-citizen migrants. The importance of judges' willingness to recognize the international law framework is also underscored. This article contributes to human rights studies by emphasizing the transformative role of judicial agency in the fight for the extension of human rights protections. Relative to citizens, non-citizens are a group lacking in political power and as such vulnerable to having their interests overlooked and their rights to equal concern and respect violated.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0330.015
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations47
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Rights QuarterlySame topicInternational Labor and Employment LawFrench-language works237,207