MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044973914 · doi:10.1093/jrs/17.2.147

Canadian Refugee Policy and the Social Construction of the Refugee Claimant Subjectivity: Understanding Refugeeness

2004· article· en· W2044973914 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Refugee Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeSubjectivityPlaintiffSociologyPolitical sciencePerspective (graphical)Gender studiesLawEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a theoretical framework to fill a gap in our understanding of refugeeness. Based on material gathered from a series of interviews undertaken as part of an exploratory study completed in Montreal, Canada, refugee claimant subjectivity is empirically explored by examining the social construction of refugees' subjectivity in three major spheres of life: work, family and state. Within this theoretical perspective two linked research questions are addressed, namely: (1) What is the impact of refugee policy on refugee claimants? and (2) How is their subjectivity altered by the refugee determination process? The objective is to understand the impact of a particular discourse on an individual's subjectivity in relation to that discourse. Refugee claimant subjectivity is analysed through those conscious thoughts and emotions expressed by subjects, their way of understanding their refugee claimant subjectivity and their social world, in large part defined by Canadian refugee policy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.303 · 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