Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fiftieth anniversary year of the 1951 Convention affords an appropriate juncture to turn our gaze to the pledges Canada has made as a signatory state and the extent to which Canadian refugee policy has been “securitized” at the expense of vulnerable refugees and the very objectives the Convention was designed to address. Through the lens of the legal standards established by the Convention as well as complementary international norms and jurisprudence, this paper considers Canada's contemporary record on refugee issues with specific reference to the national security dimension of domestic policy. The author begins by tracing the evolution of refugee law and policy during the Cold War period, as well as parallel developments in the area of immigration security. The primary focus then turns to the anti-terrorism and security measures implemented by the federal government in 1992, together with proposals for reform under review in the Canadian Senate. The author concludes by locating the coordinates of an alternative approach to national security, one which incorporates the legal standards and normative values codified in the Refugee Convention. It is an approach that is premised on the overarching objective of bridging the chasm between “civilized self” and “barbaric other,” of enhancing human security for refugees and host population alike.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".