Taxing Away Citizenship: Do American-Canadian Dual Citizens Consider Their Status to be an Inconvenience?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite growing tolerance of dual citizenship in an era of globalization, this status continues to be problematized by the governments of both the United States and Canada.This is evident in recent changes to Canadian Bill C-24, in which new grounds have been established to revoke the Canadian citizenship of 'dual citizens,' and by recent political discourse, which depicts dual citizens as Canadians of 'convenience' with 'thin' attachments to the nation.This thesis explores how dual citizenship may instead be 'inconvenient' for particular citizen subjects, namely 'American-Canadians.' To demonstrate this, twenty-three narratives of current and former 'American-Canadian' dual citizens were analyzed.It would seem paradoxical to suggest that an individual with a robust citizenship on each end of the hyphen could experience inconveniences.Nonetheless, I will demonstrate how the citizenship-based tax laws of the United States create insecurities for this population and lead to impulses to renounce this 'robust' citizenship.support of Dr. Daiva Stasiulis has greatly assisted my growth as an academic.I would like to offer my sincerest thanks to Daiva for her care and guidance as a supervisor.As well, I am grateful to have received her helpful ideas and comments on earlier drafts, all of which made this work possible.I also thank Dr. Amrita Hari for her assistance with this thesis project.Particularly for her insights, thoughtful comments, and encouragement throughout the writing process.She helped make writing this thesis a positive experience.I am incredibly grateful to Paula Whissell for her advice and kindness in moments of stress
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".