Separated Children: A Comparison of the Treatment of Separated Child Refugees Entering Australia and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Separated children are in a uniquely vulnerable situation. Not only are they in fear of persecution but they have been separated from their families. They are seeking multifaceted protections. Such children need a country to protect them from further persecution, a caregiver to nurture them and fulfil the family role and a society that will foster their social and intellectual growth. This article analyses the treatment of separated child refugees in the context of international human rights law as it relates to children and from the viewpoint of domestic immigration law. The article bases this analysis on a comparison of the treatment of separated child refugees in Australia and Canada. The fundamental principle of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child is that member states should act in the child's best interests. This principle has two important aspects, firstly, that detention of children should only be used as a last resort and, secondly, that child refugees should enjoy the right to seek asylum. The article examines the domestic law of both Australia and Canada with a view to determining how these two aspects are applied to unaccompanied children.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".