Anti-Terrorism Measures and Refugee Law Challenges in Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s security policies have had an impact on refugee protection. Canadian judges use international law principles in refugee issues, and ensure constitutional human rights protection to “everyone”, including refugees and asylum-seekers. Canada has expanded the refugee definition to persons at threat of torture, according to the United Nations Convention against Torture. But, on recent security issues, Canada has had difficulty to reconcile international law and domestic law, in terms of human rights guarantees. Return to torture has been technically rendered possible by the Supreme Court of Canada, as a matter of constitutional interpretation. One particular mechanism, the “security certificate”, has been intensely scrutinised by courts and found wanting in many cases. The secrecy surrounding the information on which the certificate is based has been criticised, as have been the ex parte proceedings, the indefiniteness of the detention, the limitations on the role of the “special advocate”, and so forth. Judges have felt increasingly irritated by the intrusion of security intelligence in judicial proceedings. Canada is (now more than before) reluctant to submit to international human rights scrutiny on migration and security issues, arguing that it relates to territorial sovereignty.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 it