Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family reunification is a key objective of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Despite this, cross-national couples continue to experience challenges during the spousal sponsorship process. The spousal sponsorship regime must be situated in the context of Canada’s history of racist immigration policies, and consider the nature of neo-racism, and the function of securitization. It is evident in the negative social construction of foreign spouses, and the conflation of cross-national couples with marriage fraud, that the government prioritizes fraud detection over family reunification. Interviews with ten individuals of cross-national marriages revealed challenges related to finances, emotional well-being, power imbalances, and the stigmatization of marrying a foreign spouse. The process was made more difficult by the government due to inadequate information, communication, and transparency. While processes of racialization can be seen to inform practices and policies of the spousal sponsorship system, other factors such as bureaucracy and socioeconomic status also appeared to play a role. Key words: family; spousal sponsorship; cross-national; racism; marriage fraud
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".