MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251207480 · doi:10.7202/043222ar

The Use of Official Notice in a Refugee Determination Process

2005· article· en· W4251207480 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoticeRefugeeConventionLawPolitical scienceScope (computer science)ConformityPersecutionProcess (computing)Economic JusticeComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Official notice allows members of administrative tribunals to take into account on their own motion a large scope of information in the decisionmaking process. With this rule of evidence, it is possible to reach a double objective of fairness and expeditiousness. In this article, the author examines the rule of evidence. She also studies the practice of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of taking official notice of « standardized country files ». These files compile information on conditions prevailing in refugee-producing countries. This study is important because the content of these files can be used to determine whether each of the 20 000 and more claimants for refugee status in Canada has a well-founded fear of persecution. The author concludes that standardized country files can be officially noticed as long as the Convention Refugee Determination Division discloses the information in conformity with the rules of natural justice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it