All in the (Definition of) Family: Transnational Parent–Child Relationships, Rights to Family Life, and Canadian Immigration Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International human rights conventions, Canadian law and academic research all support the right to family life. Internationally and domestically, multiple definitions of family are recognized, acknowledging that long-term interpersonal commitments can be based on biological relationships as well as co-residential, legal, and emotional ties. Yet, the Canadian immigration system's limited and exclusionary understanding of parent-child relationships complicates migrant family reunification. Drawing on qualitative interview and survey data from separated families and key informants who support them, we analyze national status and class assumptions embedded in Canadian immigration standards. We argue that Canadian immigration policies disproportionately deny the right to family life to transnational Canadians and their children who hail from the Global South and/or who are socio-economically disadvantaged. Immigration policies neither recognize the globally accepted "best interests of the child" welfare standard nor the human right to family life. We offer suggestions for addressing these inequities in practice and policy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".