Canadian Immigration Policies: Securing a Security Paradigm?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Security is increasingly becoming a main concern in Canadian society. Post 9/11, the challenge for Canada is to strike a balance between maintaining the flow of immigration necessary for its demographic and economic development and projecting an image of openness at a time when security measures are globally being strengthened. In the post-9/11 context, it is important to assess the extent to which security concerns have infiltrated policy discourse and choices to evaluate whether these concerns are changing the overall objectives and goals pursued by the Canadian government through policy realms such as immigration. We argue that the security logic has become embedded since 9/11. Although security concerns were becoming increasingly prevalent through the 1990s, the post-9/11 period has allowed the security agenda to prevail over the human rights agenda and concerns for civil liberties. The emphasis on criminal law to address terrorism and the use of immigration policy to impose security measures is a step away from upholding goals of social justice, equality, and openness that are still central to its policies. The paper addresses these concerns and examines options to allow human rights and citizenship rights concerns to prevail.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".