A Matter of Time: Enacting the Exclusion of Onshore Refugee Applicants Through the Reform and Acceleration of Refugee Determination Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
State-based processes for determining refugee claims are crucial sites of inclusion or exclusion for onshore refugee applicants. This paper argues that cultures of disbelief and exclusion towards onshore refugee applicants are increasingly being enacted indirectly, via procedural reforms to Refugee Status Determination (RSD), which limit the ability of applicants to establish and articulate their claims. Focusing on Australia and Canada, this paper tracks the acceleration and truncation of RSD procedures, which first reflect and then frequently achieve the exclusion of onshore applicants. Two sets of reforms in particular have profoundly limited the terms on which applicants may present their claims. In Canada, this occurred as the result of a major overhaul of RSD that took place in December 2012. In Australia, the policy of ‘enhanced screening’ of applicants achieves the immediate screening-out of certain claims from the Australian determination system. Alongside analysing these reforms as a means of exclusion, this paper argues that the new procedures most disadvantage applicants making claims on the basis of gender-related persecution. Los procesos estatales para resolver las concesiones de asilo son situaciones cruciales para la inclusión o exclusión de los solicitantes de asilo una vez están en el territorio de acogida. Este artículo defiende que cada vez más, se está promulgando indirectamente la cultura de la desconfianza y exclusión hacia los solicitantes de asilo, a través de reformas procesuales de la Determinación del Estatus de Refugiado (DER), lo que limita la capacidad de los solicitantes para establecer y articular sus demandas de asilo. Centrándose en Australia y Canadá, este artículo realiza un seguimiento de la aceleración y el truncamiento de los procedimientos de DER que primero reflejan y después a menudo consiguen la exclusión de los solicitantes en el propio territorio de acogida. Dos grupos de reformas en particular han limitado profundamente las condiciones en las que los demandantes pueden presentar sus solicitudes. En Canadá esto ocurrió debido a una revisión importante de DER que se dio en diciembre de 2012. En Australia, la política de cribado mejorado de los solicitantes consigue la exclusión inmediata de determinadas solicitudes del sistema de determinación australiano. Además de analizar estas reformas como medio de exclusión, este artículo defiende que los nuevos procedimientos perjudican especialmente a los demandantes que realizan la solicitud en base a una persecución por motivos de género. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2662547
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 | 0.021 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".