You’re not gay enough: the experiences and challenges of LGBTQ refugees during the asylum determination process in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From much of the previous literature, it has been assumed that the IRB refugee determination system is inherently unfair to LGBTQ claimants, and that it demands queer refugees disclose a great deal of intimate personal information to meet heteronormative markers of gayness. Although these experiences still occur for queer asylum seekers today, the participants in this research pointed towards a shift in the IRB claim process. Overall, the participants recognized that the system is made and maintained by those who view the world through a heteronormative lens. Ultimately, the research pointed towards the fact that claimants have adapted to meet the expectations of the IRB’s LGBTQ refugee determination system. Through the sharing of information amongst fellow claimants, service providers, and legal counsel, queer refugees have become outstanding social actors who have learned how to perform their ‘queerness’ to gain a positive IRB result that ensures their protection from their countries of origin. It is important to note that this does not mean that anyone who wishes to seek asylum in Canada can do so under the guise of LGBTQ identities. Instead, this category of refugees has always been and will remain valid, and claimants have learned to perform the aspects of their identity which meet the stereotypical demands of the IRB and other heteronormative Canadian systems. Key words: LGBTQ, LGBTQ refugees, LGBTQ asylum-seekers, refugee claimants, IRB, Canada, Toronto, immigration, SOGIE, social actors, heteronormative, waiting
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".