MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138187496 · doi:10.26443/firr.v9i1.10

The Safe Third Country Agreement and Global Order

2019· article· en· W3138187496 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Zoe Wilkins

Bibliographic record

VenueFlux International Relations Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeOrder (exchange)Political scienceEconomic JusticeAgreementLaw and economicsLawSociologyBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Safe Third Country Agreement (SCTA) is a bilateral agreement between Canada and the United States that involves the mutual recognition of each party as an effective refugee host. This paper argues that although the agreement appears to be pro-refugee protection, in practice it functions as a non-arrival measure, barring refugees from entering Canada. The paper invokes the English School approach to investigate how both parties use the STCA to capitalize on values of order, while appearing to empower the principles of justice prevalent in international refugee norms. Using SCTA provisions, different theoretical approaches, and a thorough inventory of international refugee regime norms, the analysis seeks to contextualize the SCTA. The paper concludes that civil society’s push towards justice and refugee protection forces governments to consider values outside of order, with the potential of addressing both concerns harmoniously.

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)0.004
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.025
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlux International Relations ReviewSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207