Family reunification? : a critical analysis of Citizenship and Immigration Canada's 2013 reforms to the Family Class
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2011, significant reforms to Canada’s Family Class for immigration began with the freezing of applications for parent and grandparent sponsorship. In May 2013, a package of reforms to the Family Class was proposed, which would impose more stringent conditions for the sponsorship of parents, grandparents, and dependent children under the Family Class. In response, a coalition of civic stakeholders in Ontario mobilized through the “My Canada Includes All Families” campaign to lobby Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) to stop the implementation of these changes. This paper analyzes the package of reforms and explores the impacts that past and proposed reforms might have upon the value of the family unit in Canada. This paper aims to support the “My Canada Includes All Families” campaign by presenting practical research to illustrate the benefits that parents, grandparents, and family reunification have for the Canadian social fabric in terms of social capital. Key words: policy reform, family reunification, social capital, economic rationale, racialization
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".