Between Protection and Punishment: The Irregular Arrival Regime in Canadian Refugee Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Stanstead border crossing dividing Québec from Vermont is not a typical border crossing point- One would expect to find a wall, a fence, or a checkpoint station to mark the international boundary line, instead, a simple white line is painted on the concrete bearing the inscription ‘Canada’ and ‘United States’ on either side- A row of flowerpots sits atop thai while line, dividing one country from another. East of the white line is the Stanstead library, constructed deliberately astride the border, with the front door located in the United States and the collection in Canada, One floor above, the Haskell Opera House stages productions that traverse the border: the cast performs on Canadian soil while the audience sits in the United States. Described by the New York Times as a ‘symbol of cross-border friendship’ (Austen 2007), the Stanstead border crossing presents the Canadian border as many imagine it: open, welcoming, and lined with flowers. This ideal is not simply imagined, but also finds expression in law. For example, in the landmark 1985 decision Singh v. Canada , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that every person who is physically present at or within Canada’s borders, including refugee claimants, is legally entitled to basic constitutional protection under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . With this decision, the Court effectively enacted the Canadian border as a site of limited, but nonetheless meaningful, rights protection for refugee claimants, 1 These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".