Considering Domestic Violence in the Context of Refugee Claimants in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Liberalism and the Limits of Inclusion: Race and Immigration Law in the Americas, Cook-Martin, and FitzGerald (2010) acknowledge and refute the dominant perspective that the adoption of international human rights-based immigration law has eradicated exclusionary immigration policies in liberal states such as Canada (9). In fact, Cook-Martin and FitzGerald (2010) establish that exclusionary immigration policies are proposed and implemented more in liberal states than in illiberal states (7). In considering this discussion of immigration policies in liberal states, it can be asserted that despite the purported attempts of liberal states to eradicate exclusion in immigration policies, liberal states continue to participate in forms of positive discrimination which occur during the processes of evaluating the claims of individuals who are pursuing refugee status (Cook-Martin & FitzGerald 2010, 14). In the process of evaluating refugee claims, Sherene Razack (1998) further advances this discussion of liberal immigration policies through arguing that adjudicators on immigration boards categorize individuals seeking asylum on the grounds of domestic violence in diametric positions (88-89). Razack (1998) thus purports that adjudicators categorize claimants as either disreputable claimants or those in essential need of emancipation from the violence endured on valid grounds of persecution (88-89). Drawing on the perspectives of Cook-Martin and FitzGerald (2010) and Razack (1998), this article will demonstrate that immigration rights in liberal states are not granted equally .
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".