Vulnerability and the Quest for Protection: A Review of Canadian Migration Case Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the concept of vulnerability has become increasingly prevalent in both domestic and international migration policy in recent years, its precise meaning and implications remain ambiguous and under-examined. Without a coherent understanding of what makes individuals vulnerable, the concept can either act as a justification for additional consideration or reinforce stereotypes of disempowerment. To address this lack of clarity, this article presents the results of an extensive review of Canadian case law. Drawing on data from over 750 cases primarily from the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada, this study sought to examine how the concept of vulnerability is used by both decision-makers and parties to cases involving migrants seeking legal status and various forms of protection (including, but not limited to, asylum) under national or international law in Canada. Although an analysis of case law necessarily produces only a partial image of the landscape, this review identified two understandings of vulnerability at play: a procedural one associated with the need to ensure access to justice and a fair hearing, and a substantive one where vulnerability is linked to the categorization of particular groups. In both instances, the recognized importance of the concept is offset by its narrow and inconsistent application and a failure to acknowledge the role that the institutions and mechanisms of “protection” play in creating and perpetuating vulnerability.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".