MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2497384339

Queue the Rhetoric: Refugees, Resettlement and Reform

2011· article· en· W2497384339 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shauna Labman

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeePolitical scienceImmigration reformCitizenshipImmigrationLegislatureRhetoricLaw reformCommissionImmigration lawGovernment (linguistics)Refugee lawPublic administrationLawPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The day before Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) introduced the legislative package to reform Canadian refugee law in 2010, the Ministry announced an expansion of Canada's resettlement program to bring over more needy refugees. According to CIC, the expansion amounted to a potential increase of 2,500 resettlement places per year. That this announcement preceded the introduction of Bill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act by one day demonstrates two important points. First, refugee resettlement is distinct from refugee law. Second, resettlement now sits in juxtaposition to in-country asylum. This article will chronicle the increasing tendency of the Canadian government to position resettlement against in-country asylum rather than present the two streams of refugee protection in their traditionally complementary roles. The consequence is an evasion and erosion of Canada's international legal obligations to refugees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0420.061
Scholarly communication0.0170.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0110.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207