Under the IRPA and after Irving: The Right to Standing before the Federal Court for Canadian Children Seeking to Challenge Their Parents’ Deportations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"It is shortly before Christmas and 9-week-old Jonathan is about to lose one of his parents. His Colombian mother is scheduled to be deported from Canada and his Canadian father has applied for sole custody. Canadian law obliges the immigration authorities in many circumstances to consider the impact of their decisions on children. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) requires the relevant powers to take into account "the best interests of a child directly affected" in deciding a non-status parent's application to stay in Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds (H&C), for example, and in deciding whether or not to grant a permanent resident parent's appeal of a decision to strip her of her status. The Court has also interpreted the IRPA as requiring the officials responsible for scheduling deportations to consider the children's best interests in a more limited fashion in deciding whether or not to defer a parent's deportation temporarily, such as to allow time for her H&C application to be considered. A parent involved in any of these administrative processes may therefore give evidence to demonstrate how her removal will harm her child."
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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".