Taking It Personally: Delimiting Gender-Based Refugee Claims Using the Complementary Protection Provision in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Random violence and general criminal risk—decision makers evaluating refugee claims are characterizing violence against women in this manner. The reduction of gendered violence, leading to the denial of refugee claims, occurs under the covert operation of Canada’s consolidated refugee definition. Canada has received accolades for recognizing gender-related persecution. Since this recognition, Canada has consolidated its refugee definition, legislating a “complementary protection provision” in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Prior to 2002, risk assessments done just prior to the removal of persons asked whether persons would be returned to torture or cruel and unusual punishment. In 2002, this assessment was included in the refugee determination process. There has been little evaluation of this provision since then. This article examines the performative functions of Canada’s complementary protection and finds the provision delimits gender-related claims in three ways. First, it does not fill the gaps left by the enumerated grounds system. Second, the provision encourages the production of harmful discourse on violence against women. Finally, it encourages decision makers to conflate the separate analyses (enumerated grounds and the complementary protection schemes), erroneously allowing factors such as the universality of oppression or violence to erode the enumerated grounds regime.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".