Detention in Canada of asylum claimants for identity determination: a critical review of the literature pertaining to Canada’s immigration detention centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper maps the unconstitutionality of Canada’s legislation regarding asylum claimants. In particular, the paper examines the policies that allow asylum claimant’s detainment in the absence of identification. The aim of this study is twofold. First, it establishes through a meta-synthesis of the literature, gap that exist in the study of immigration detention centers. These studies clearly demonstrate that immigration detention centres are similar to prisons but significantly do not consider the constitutionality of identification requirements that subject asylum claimants to detention. Second, the study demonstrates through a human rights approach that Canadian policies which require refugees to prove their identity prior to claim adjudication violates the asylum claimant’s Charter and fundamental human rights. Canada’s approach, which makes asylum claimants responsible for proving their identity reintroduces the practice of reverse onus. Hence Canadian immigration policies enacted in 2001 (post-9/11), are in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom and in violation of international human rights laws. I suggest that if the government is serious about the human rights of asylum claimants it must create policies that ensure the protection of refugee rights in Canada.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".