La sortie du territoire chinois d'un demandeur d'asile sous sa véritable identité constitue-t-elle un motif de refus d’une demande d’asile ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans une série de décisions récentes, l’OFPRA et la CNDA ont fondé des rejets de demandes d’asile présentés par des chinois ayant quitté leur pays sous leur vraie identité en invoquant des rapports officiels canadiens selon lesquels les autorités chinoises interdisent aux personnes inquiétées dans les conditions alléguées par les demandeurs d’asile de quitter le territoire chinois, moyennant quoi leurs allégations de persécutions en Chine sont considérées comme dénuées de crédibilité. Dans les affaires concernées, l’OFPRA et la CNDA n’ont pas communiqué aux demandeurs d’asile lesdits rapports officiels avant de rendre leurs décisions. Cet article soutient que cette procédure viole le principe du contradictoire, que les interprétations des sources administratives canadiennes sont inexactes et que la jurisprudence canadienne, qui ne reprend pas les thèses des rapports administratifs, devrait prévaloir sur les sources administratives.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".