MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122886885

Independent Human Rights Documentation and Sexual Minorities: An Ongoing Challenge for the Canadian Refugee Determination Process

2011· article· en· W3122886885 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicole LaViolette

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersecutionSexual orientationRefugeeHuman rightsPlaintiffDocumentationTransgenderPolitical scienceLesbianLawSexual identityCriminologyBusinessSociologyGender studiesHuman sexuality
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual minorities must meet the same evidentiary burden as all other refugee claimants. Independent country information produced by international human rights organisations plays an important role in meeting this burden. However, in the case of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender claimants, existing country documentation still fails to provide the kind of information refugees need to support their claims. This is due to the continual struggle of human rights organisations to properly document abuses against sexual minorities. Also, the legal questions most relevant to claims based on sexual orientation and gender identity have shifted over the last 15 years. Early cases turned on whether a claimant’s fear of persecution was well founded or whether the claimants were able to prove their sexual orientation. Recent cases have focused on the distinction between persecution and discrimination, the availability of state protection, and possible regional contrasts in the treatment of sexual minorities within a country. The shift in legal issues requires evidence that is either not available or is not sufficiently focused or detailed to meet the legal requirements of the Canadian refugee determination process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207