Rehabilitating the Criminality of Immigrants under Section 19 of the Canadian Immigration Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigration has historically been associated with moral entrepreneur-ship and xenophobia. In periods of high unemployment and global dislocation, immigrants easily become the targets of political commentators who complain of their criminality, morals, demand on public services, and competition for scarce employment. In this exercise, looking at the recidivism of immigrants who come to Canada with a previous, foreign criminal history, quite a different picture emerges. Among this random sample (N=204), 97.5 percent of immigrants granted a rehabilitation waiver under the provisions of the Canadian Immigration Act were not re-arrested in Canada within a period of about 3.5 years after their landing was approved by the Minister. Of those who were arrested, most of the delinquency was manageable and, in fact, resulted in either an acquittal, diversion or lower-range sanctions. This is not the kind of imagery complained of by the tabloids or critics in the body politic. It behooves us, then, to exercise care in discussing crime and immigration, as it is a subject easily prone to the creation of ‘moral panics” and resulting repressive legislation against persons of color.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".