Immigrants' perceptions of the legal system : a qualitative study of Bangladeshi immigrants in Winnipeg, Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines perceptions of the Canadian legal system among Bangladeshi immigrants in Winnipeg, Manitoba.Previous studies provide information on perceptions of victims, offenders, or police.However, little attempt has been made in analyzing the perception of the legal system in Canada among immigrants in general.It is also true that no attempt has been made to study Bangladeshi immigrants' perceptions of the legal system of Canada.Legal pluralism provides a conceptual frameworkto analyze these perceptions in this study.Qualitative in-depth interviews are used to understand immigrants' perceptions of the legal system.Interviewees are selected through purposive and snowball sampling.Study findings show that participants are aware that immigrants should have an understanding of the legal system of Canada to abide by the laws of the country.Participants put emphasis on the govemment's role in dissemination of information of the legal system of Canada to the immigrants.Findings also indicate some mixed perceptions in regard to racial discrimination by police in Canada.Coexistence of dual legal practices, combining the Sharia law and the Canadian lal, is revealed in the study.Study participants further express their mixed views on the practice of ofÍicial and unoff,rcial forms of ordering in resolving disputes in their daily life.This study also provides recommendations on some policy implications and on future research.sfudy participants were invaluable; this research would not have been done without their willingness to participate in this study.Thank you to Margaret Currie, Sandy Froese, Dianne Bulback, and Donna Alexiuk for all of your administrative help.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".