Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is now widely accepted that lesbians, gay men and transgendered people may make refugee claims on the grounds of their membership of the 'particular social group' category of the Refugee Convention. Claims to protection made by lesbians and gay men based on sexual orientation extend the outsider nature of the refugee claim and its relationship to human rights. To claim 'core' human rights for lesbians and gay men is paradoxical given the marginality of sexual minorities in human rights jurisprudence to date. Sexual orientation has only very recently been acknowledged as a valid loci of human rights in international law and is typically still far from widely accepted as the basis for equality claims in many refugee receiving nations. This paper does not propose that Constitutional equality guarantees are a panacea for discrimination on the basis of sexuality (or indeed on any other basis). Nor do I argue that there is necessarily a direct and demonstrable impact upon refugee decision-making in the countries under discussion. Rather, I suggest that a greater familiarity with lesbian and gay claims across a range of areas in tandem with a deeper and longer standing engagement with equality analysis has meant that Canadian decision-makers, unlike those in Australia and especially those in the UK, have been more ready to connect sexual orientation claims with human rights norms. This, in turn, has had a pervasive impact upon what decision-makers are prepared to construe as persecutory in sexuality based claims.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 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".