When Do Human Rights Treaties Help Asylum Seekers? A Study of Theory and Practice In Canadian Jurisprudence Since 1990
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article supports a new theoretical approach to the utilization of human rights treaties in refugee status adjudications in domestic courts. The existing literature on treaty effectiveness is divided between several optimistic and pessimistic perspectives, none of which adequately predict the circumstances under which domestic courts in Canada reference treaties in ways that help refugees obtain relief. This new theoretical approach adds to the literature on treaty effectiveness in the litigation context by suggesting that the extent to which Canadian domestic courts reference treaties in ways that help refugees depends on several factors, including the manner in which those treaties are integrated into domestic law. It also demonstrates that invoking human rights treaties indiscriminately can be detrimental to the interests of refugees, as it can create the impression that the refugee’s lawyer is desperate.
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 | 0.042 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".