Consultation During Rule-Making: A Case Study of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since it prescribed its first regulatory policy in 1986, the Federal government implemented a consultation process with stakeholders and the general public during the rule-making process. This process is not legally mandatory (unlike in the province of Quebec). However, failure to conduct a consultation process results in an administrative sanction: the refusal to approve the new regulation by Cabinet. This article reports on the results of an empirical research project we conducted in 2004 within the Immigration Division of the Citizenship and Immigration Canada Department [CIC]. Our general research question was exploratory in nature. We wanted to know how CIC civil servants understood their obligation to consult with citizens. Our case-study indicates that it is difficult to implement a consultative culture within a department that has a strong long-term commitment to protect the integrity of the Canadian territory.
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 | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.058 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".