MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345576407 · doi:10.7202/1100095ar

OF GODS AND MONSTERS: NATIONAL SECURITY AND CANADIAN REFUGEE POLICY

2023· article· en· W2345576407 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sharryn J. Aiken

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de droit international · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesRefugeeConventionEthnologySociologyLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de droit internationalSame topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207