Claims of Belonging: Commitment and Authenticity in the Canadian Citizenship Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the summer of 2006, Canada's Conservative government faced its first serious public controversy in its handling of the evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon during the armed struggle that erupted in July of that year. After the evacuation crisis had been addressed, questions regarding Canada's obligation to dual citizens, not to mention dual citizens' obligations to Canada, became a lively topic of public and political debate. But no sooner had this conversation begun than another citizenship crisis arose. This one was spurred by the passport requirement of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (which came into force in 2007). Many people who thought they were Canadian citizens were discovering, upon applying for their passports, that their citizenship was in question. The response to these stories of 'Lost Canadians' was an outpouring of public sympathy and national embarrassment with the 'arcane' rules of Canadian citizenship.Using social theory, parliamentary debates and media coverage, our paper explores the juxtaposition of these events to examine the articulation of the Canadian national identity, both in terms of who counts as a Canadian and who does not. Theories of securitization, ethnic and civic nationalism, and national membership provide the grounding for an exploration of the tension between claims of national belonging based on commitment and consent and those based on birthright, blood ties and an organic connection to the nation.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.060 | 0.097 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".