The Growing Culture of Exclusion: Trends in Canadian Refugee Exclusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article tracks trends in the use of the Refugee Convention's exclusion provisions in Canada from 1998 to 2008. Every publically available exclusion case during this time was gathered and this considerable body of jurisprudence was supplemented with data obtained using Access to Information laws. The data was analyzed to track the use of exclusion measures, the types of exclusion measures most often used, and the responsiveness of the refugee tribunal to the government's arguments in favour of exclusion (in other words, the government's success rate). In addition to this quantitative analysis, a qualitative assessment was made of how allegations of terrorism and exclusion are related. In this analysis, the focus was on judicial reasoning and on how the meaning of ‘terrorism’ within Canadian refugee law has expanded during this time frame. The article concludes that post-2001 security politics have influenced both the rate of exclusions and the judicial discourse surrounding terrorism. Following on from this conclusion, the article considers how both ‘morality’ and ‘sovereignty’ are redefined within Canadian refugee law.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".