Prospects for a North American Security Perimeters: Coordination and Harmonization of United States and Canadian Immigration and Refugee Laws, The
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the twentieth century, the border between Canada and the United States of America was commonly referred to, with great pride, as the world's longest undefended border.After September 11, 2001, the term undefended quickly became a dirty word in Ottawa and Washington, as the Americans began to view their northern border as a vulnerability.'The September 11 attacks led to a profound increase in security measures and border controls in the United States and, as a consequence, Canada.The initial response of the United States in the immediate aftermath of the attacks resulted in extensive delays along the Canada-United States border.Realizing the costs of such delays, leaders from both countries issued a joint "Smart Border" plan, which has acted as the blueprint for bilateral cooperation at the border in the subsequent years.The reality of the effectiveness of border controls, and debate over what should be the primary objective of such controls, has led to renewed discussion on the concept of a North American security perimeter.This plan would essentially eliminate barriers to the movement of people and goods across the shared border, and focus instead on enforcement and prevention at continental points of entry.Moving towards a North American security perimeter would have far reaching implications in numerous policy areas for Canada and the United States, including security, law enforcement, trade and commerce, and immigration and refugee policies.Pursuing such a far-reaching plan would require significant political willpower by North American leaders, which has yet to be espoused by politicians on either side of the border.Nevertheless, t J.D., Case Western Reserve University School of Law, 2010; B.A. (Honours), Bishop's University, 2005.I thank my wife Emily, my Mother, and my Uncle Paul for their
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".