MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025677571

Political Liberalism in Canada: The Case of Syrian Refugees

2020· article· en· W3025677571 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adhi Cahya Fahadayna

Bibliographic record

VenueTransformasi Global · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsIdeologyRefugeeLiberalismPolitical economyPolitical scienceClassical liberalismHumanitySociologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The refugee crisis in Canada has created political dynamics affected by the ideological spectrum in Canadian Politics. Liberalism is the most widely accepted political ideology among Canadians. Refugee and political liberalism have shared fundamental relations consdering political liberalism inextricable link with humanity as its core value. Admittedly, political liberalism requires a country or a government to fulfill its responsibility toward humanity by protecting or admitting refugees. Eventually, during the refugee crisis in Canada, political liberalism contributed a crucial role in the open-door policy toward refugees. Firstly, this paper will focus on the crucial attesting role of political liberalism toward the open-door policy of the Canadian government toward refugees. Secondly, this paper also focuses on measuring the extent to which political liberalism is widely accepted as a political ideology in Canada. Finally, the paper also seeks to discover the political justification of the open-door policy of Canada on the basis of political ideology. The paper draws on a literature study to explain the focuses of this paper. Key Words: Political liberalism, Canada, refugee crisis, and the open-door policy

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0460.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransformasi GlobalSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207