Immigrant Rights in Iran and Canada and International Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After World War II, migration, particularly in the post-Cold War became a global challenge. Today, there are 191 million migrants around the world that constitutes 3 percent of the world's total population. And it is a fact that has various social, economic, humanitarian, political and especially juridical dimensions and effects at the international level as an international issue. National Immigration Law is a part of the legal system governing the strangers in the host state whose provisions are determined by the domestic legal system of the recent state. Although the standards of international law are intended to govern migration, but in this case, however, the regulation of the source government is ineffective. Unless there are specific treaty arrangements while global recruits in the field of migration are specifically impossible and regional multilateral treaties can only be cited. This article tries to review and analyze the immigrant rights in Iran as a source country and Canada as a host country with their own different rights regarding the immigrants by a descriptive - analytical approach. Because of tangible vacuum in the literature of international law and the need to explore other sources of international law, according to the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, on the one hand and the necessity of this article in Iran as a transit country for migration and particularly to Canada on the other hand, conducting this research is of great importance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".