The need to redefine the criteria of well-founded fear for unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unaccompanied minors are children under the age of 18 who do not have their parents or legal guardian present at the time they make a refugee protection claim in Canada. like adult refugee claimants, unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in Canada have to prove both subjective and objective fear for the well-founded fear to be accorded Convention refugee status under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA ). However, a child refugee claimant may not be able to express subjective fear of persecution in the same manner as an adult refugee claimant. Inference of lack of subjective fear that can be drawn from the pre-application conduct of unaccompanied minors could lead to negative refugee determination. Unaccompanied minors, being not able to establish their subjective fear, though there may be objective evidence of a risk of persecution, may face denial of refugee protection. They require special consideration in their asylum claim, not only for procedural questions but also for substantive issues. My objective is to demonstrate that the requirement of subjective fear for the well-founded fear in section 96 of the IRPA has to be eliminated in the case of unaccompanied minors. This will be met by showing that unaccompanied minors' right to equality under section 15 of the Canadian Charter is violated by requiring them to prove both their subjective fear and objective fear, and that this violation is not reasonable and not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under section 1 of the Charter. Moreover, the need for unaccompanied minors to prove objective fear alone for their well-founded fear will be justified philosophically with the principle of the best interests of the child and the legal theory of Ronald Dworkin.
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 | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".