Refugee Claimant Service Providers: Negotiating Shifting Policies, Practices and Perceptions in Atlantic Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is based on interviews and focus groups with fourteen research participants, all of whom work for organizations providing services for immigrants, refugees and refugee claimants in Atlantic Canada. The purpose of this study is to explore the research participants’ perceptions of the policies and practices that impact refugee claimants in the Atlantic Canadian region and to identify possible contradictions and gaps in policies, practices and services. Policy recommendations are also included toward improving the experiences of refugee claimants, a largely invisible and yet ever present and diverse group that disrupts the image of Canadian humanitarianism. This research is part of a multi-phased study exploring the experiences of refugee claimants in Canada, with a special emphasis on Atlantic Canada. Our findings show service providers perceive that shifting public policy has negatively impacted refugee claimants in Atlantic Canada, resulting in decreased services, increased complexity in navigating governmental systems, and increased deterrence for people seeking asylum. We conclude by recommending changes in policy and practice in the area of refugee protection.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".