Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last few years there has been a dramatic increase in claims for refugee status in Australia based on sexuality, particularly by gay men and lesbians. This article seeks to assess the development of Australian jurisprudence in this area, taking account also of jurisprudence from the UK, the US, Canada and New Zealand. The article focuses on two key issues: «membership of a particular social group» as a basis for claiming refugee status; and the meaning of «persecution». Part 1 describes the Australian legal framework, Part 2 considers whether «queer identity» can constitute a particular social group within the meaning of the 1951 Convention, and Part 3 examines persecution in the context of claims based on these grounds. After reviewing relevant factors and issues, the author concludes that, although the recognition by the courts and the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) that sexual minorities may constitute particular social groups is appropriate, the treatment of the concept of persecution has, in many cases, been problematic. The author offers a number of suggestions as to how the question of persecution should be approached in the future.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".