The Canadian government proactive monitoring activities of the private sponsorship of Refugees Program (PSR): practices and impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The development of IRCC proactive monitoring activities was attributable to the growing concerns of inadequate resettlement practices affecting the privately sponsored refugees arriving in Canada. This MRP sought to determine the background context for the foundation of the IRCC proactive monitoring activities as well as understand the consequences of these practices. The study analyzed the process relating to the IRCC monitoring activities and the impacts it has on Sponsorship Agreement Holders (SAHs). This study embraced a case study methodology that interviewed five staff members from various SAH organizations. The findings suggested that IRCC proactive monitoring process echoes management audit practices that are causing structural barriers and has adverse outcomes on SAHs operations. For example, the lack of IRCC consultations with SAHs has led to a rift of resistance that undermined their local expertise in refugee sponsorship. SAHs work has shifted towards strengthening its internal control mechanisms that emphasized financial</p> <p>principles.</p> <p><br></p> <p>Key words: refugee sponsorship program; neoliberalism; governmentality; audit culture; and case study</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".