A Primer on Citizenship Revocation for WWII Collaboration: The 1998-1999 Federal Court Term
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a review of recent jurisprudence in relation to revocation of citizenship proceedings against those alleged to have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity. The author discusses proceedings involving citizenship obtained by deception by those involved in World War II, with a particular focus on five cases decided in late 1998 and 1999. The article addresses both procedural and substantive issues that have arisen in these proceedings. Although past procedural problems of characterization of the proceedings, the scope of required notices, and rights to appeal have generally been clarified in recent jurisprudence, some specific problems still remain to be resolved. The author points out that the substantive issues surrounding collaboration, actual post-WW Il security screening practices, the existence of a duty of candour, and the legal authority for security screening of immigration applicants still remain in a state of uncertainty as the current cases have provided conflicting results. Interpretation of old legislation and the determination of how such legislation was actually applied to security screening by immigration officials at the time of the immigrant's application are the main concerns in deciding these substantive issues. Matters are further complicated by the lack of evidence, both testimonial and documentary. The resolution, or lack thereof, of the procedural and substantive issues will have a bearing on proceedings initiated by the government in relation to modern war crimes cases.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".