Analyse multidisciplinaire du processus décisionnel de la CISR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The refugee determination process is one of the most complex judicial functions in our societies. Decision makers involved in this process require a sufficient knowledge of the cultural, social, and political environment of the country of origin, a capacity to bear the psychological weight of difficult hearings and potentially life-threatening decisions, and an ability to deal with complex legal issues and evidence. In Canada, despite a relatively broad recognition rate and wide interpretation of the international refugee definition, dissatisfaction with the decision-making process at the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) has been expressed by numerous actors as well as by the general public. The following report examines the nature and causes of discord between the different actors involved in this process, including irb board members and refugeeclaim officers on the one hand, and professionals such as lawyers, doctors, and expert witnesses on the other. Using a methodological framework that includes both quantitative and qualitative approaches, the authors of this multidisciplinary research project define a set of parameters and variables through which three critical dimensions of the refugee determination process—cultural, psychological, and legal—are explored. Data for the study consist of forty problematic cases referred to the research team by lawyers and other professionals; ten of the cases, which include cassettes and transcripts of hearings, were analyzed in depth by experts in the three respective fields of study. The results indicate numerous problems affecting decisionmaking based on legal factors (difficulties in evaluating evidence, assessing credibility, conducting hearings, and writing decisions), psychological factors (difficulties in coping with vicarious traumatization and emotional reactions), and cultural factors (poor knowledge of the political situation in countries of origin, false representations of daily life in war-torn countries, and cultural misunderstandings or insensitivity). In a majority of cases, these legal, psychological, and cultural dimensions interact, reinforcing uncertainty, cynicism, and aggression, and often negatively affecting the ability of board members to evaluate credibility and the overall conduct of hearings. The report proposes a set of recommendations including revised selection criteria for board members and refugee claim officers, as well as improved training and support for all actors; it highlights as well the difficulties inherent in using a non-adversarial system in refugee hearings. An English version of the report can be found at http://www.juris.uqam.ca/cedim/recherches.htm.
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 | 0.085 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".