Obstacles to ratification of the ICRMW in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Throughout the twentieth century, international migration policies and principles have been dominated by the nationalist/consequentialist paradigm (Piché, forthcoming; Ruhs and Chang, 2004). This paradigm is based on two fundamental principles: first, international migration policies are the exclusive prerogative of national states (national sovereignty); and second, they are geared towards national interests (immigration must thus have positive economic consequences). One notable breach with respect to national sovereignty is the Geneva Convention (1950) whereby States Parties have accepted international standards and multilateral management of refugee protection. Although ‘virtually all migration policies affect the enjoyment of recognized human rights’ (Fitzpatrick, 2003, p. 169), the connection between international migration and human rights is relatively recent and can be traced back to the early work of the ILO and, in particular, the 1949 Migration for Employment Convention. However, the basic instrument in human rights of migrants is the ICRMW, which was adopted by the UN in 1990 and came into force thirteen years later, on 1 July 2003, after ratification by twenty signatory countries. As was the case with women and children, the adoption of this specific convention by the international community targeted the human rights protection of a particularly vulnerable group: non-citizens (workers and members of their families). Since the Convention came into force, twenty-one other states have ratified it (bringing the number of ratifications to forty-one as of June 2009) and campaigns geared towards ratification are under way in several countries.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".