Status Determination of Refugees in Canada and European Union: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper brings out various issues relating to the determination of refugee status in Canada and European Union. Its lays emphasis on the minimum standards that have been adopted by the countries assuming that the procedures are established in accordance with human rights. The applicant should receive the necessary guidance as to the procedure to be followed. There should be a clearly identified authority wherever possible a single central authority with responsibility for examining requests for refugee status and taking a decision. The applicant should be given the necessary facilities, including the services of a competent interpreter, for submitting his case to the authorities concerned. Author further endeavors to understand the incorporation of definition of refugee as stated in Convention of 1951 and its adharance by the nations along with the understanding of the definition by these countries and the reasons of persecution laying special emphasis on Sexual Orientation as belonging to particular social group. While researching on the paper the author has formulated the various issues/ questions to be looked into and have tried to find answers for it such; What is the process of status determination in these countries?; How is Sexual Orientation resorted to as determining factor belonging to a particular social group?; What is the interpretation of definition of refugee and reasons of persecution?. Author has begun with the hypothesis that certain standards of reception policies are adopted by the two countries and the procedures are appropriate, relevant and in consonance with Human Rights and arrives at a conclusion keeping in mind the hypothesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".