Individual risk, armed conflict and the standard of proof in complementary protection claims:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Though the title of this chapter implies a technical and comparative legal analysis of the standard of proof in complementary protection claims vis-à-vis Convention refugee claims, this is only part of its substance. Indeed, while the standard of proof has become a central distinguishing feature in the Canadian context between attaining protection as a ‘refugee’ or as a ‘person in need of protection’, this debate has been largely absent from the EU arena. Nevertheless, high evidentiary burdens, combined with a haphazard consideration of the three possible grounds for subsidiary protection in the EU, mean that as in Canada, subsidiary protection status is not simply a residual status for people who would be Convention refugees but for the absence of a nexus with one of the five Convention grounds. Accordingly, this chapter focuses on the legal impediments to obtaining subsidiary protection in the EU that have manifested themselves since the Qualification Directive entered into force for the EU Member States in October 2006. Its particular focus is article 15(c), which extends protection to civilians facing ‘a serious and individual threat to their life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict’. This provision has been poorly understood, inconsistently applied across the Member States, and in some jurisdictions is the only subsidiary protection category given full consideration when a Convention claim fails.
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 | 0.026 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".