MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121677200 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.3039

Bordering the Constitution, Constituting the Border

2016· article· en· W3121677200 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Efrat Arbel

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeConstitutionLawPolitical scienceState (computer science)Power (physics)Constitutional rightLaw and economicsSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is an established principle in Canadian law that refugees present at or within Canada’s borders are entitled to basic constitutional protection. Where precisely these borders lie, however, is far from clear. In this article, I examine the Canadian border as a site at which to study the constitutional entitlements of refugees. Through an analysis of the Multiple Borders Strategy (MBS)--a broad strategy that re-charts Canada’s borders for the purposes of enhanced migration regulation--I point to a basic tension at play in the border as site. I argue that the MBS imagines and enacts the border in two fundamentally different ways. On one hand, it conceives of the border as a multiple, moving barrier that can be selectively positioned outside Canada’s territorial boundaries to expand state power outward. On the other hand and at the same time, it conceives of the border as a singular and static barrier positioned at the edge of Canadian territory and asserts this as the “actual” border. By simultaneously conceiving of the border in these two conflicting ways--and maintaining that Canada’s extraterritorial borders are not its actual borders--the MBS frustrates a basic principle of Canadian constitutional law. It not only deprives refugees of constitutional protection but also, more fundamentally, of legal and constitutional recognition. To illuminate the legal and conceptual violence of the MBS, I turn to the work of Hannah Arendt on the “right to have rights.” By reference to Arendt’s work, I argue that the MBS not only re-charts Canada’s national boundary, it also alters the juridical relationships produced by that boundary and the rights and duties they prescribe. I conclude by advocating for better alignment between Canada’s constitutional commitments and its border laws and policies. I argue that to give meaning to the right to have rights within Canada’s constitutional framework and to ensure that those subject to the force of Canadian law may also benefit from its protection, Canada must ensure that wherever its legal borders go the constitution follows.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.045
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207