MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581499826 · doi:10.11575/prism/30098

Refugee Claims and Successful Claimants in Canada 2000-2014: A Description of a Forgotten Reality in Canada

2016· article· en· W2581499826 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Camilo Camacho Escamilla

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Geopolitics and Ethnography
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeePolitical scienceLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current Canadian immigration and refugee provisions define two different types of refugees depending on where the applicants are located when submitting a claim (from within Canada or elsewhere), giving them different procedures and conditions to apply, as well as different benefits and support once their claim is approved. Thus, under the In- Canada Asylum Program, if the claim is successfully submitted in person from within Canada at any Port Of Entry (POE), the applicant receives a Refugee Claimant status and is entitled to stay in the country under certain conditions and limited rights while his/her application is processed. In turn, through the Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program, if the applicant’s claim is submitted from outside Canada, refugee applicants have to remain outside the country until a decision on his/her claim is reached. Once a refugee claim submitted from outside the country is approved, the applicant is allowed to come to Canada and is eligible to be sponsored by private entities or public funds. These refugees are known as Sponsored Refugees or Resettled Refugees and are given particular benefits and support. Refugees granted status after applying from within Canada (Successful Refugee Claimants), on the other hand, are permitted to remain in the country but without any type of sponsorship and with different levels of support. Using information provided to the author by Statistics Canada, this paper shows to be false the common perception that most refugees come to Canada after applying from overseas and arrive supported by the government or by private funds. In fact, the number of refugees annually given Refugee Claimant status in Canada significantly exceeds the number of Sponsored Refugees in the country. Moreover, the number of Successful Refugee Claimants is also greater than the number of Resettled Refugees in the country. As this research suggests, despite the efforts made by the government to reduce the number of claims submitted from within Canada along with the number of Successful Refugee Claimants, the Inland Refugee Program continues to be the main source of refugees in the country over the period 2000-2014.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.016
Science and technology studies0.0150.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicAsian Geopolitics and EthnographyFrench-language works237,207