MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384024522 · doi:10.32920/23589474

A Literature Review on the Application of IRB Chairperson Guidelines 4: "Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution" in Decision Making

2023· review· en· W4384024522 on OpenAlexaffabout
Haby Bah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive Law
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersecutionRefugeePolitical scienceSection (typography)Religious persecutionGender studiesLawCriminologySociologyBusinessAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines Canada's "Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution" and its implications on women asylum seekers in Canada. Canada's Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution Guidelines were examined in order to get a better understanding of its impact on women seeking protection from gender based persecution. The first section of this paper looks at how certain refugee policies such as the Designated Country of Origin List and the Internal Flight Alternative have impacted women fleeing gender based persecution while the second section discusses the implications of the guidelines on women asylum seekers refugee determination process. This paper provides background information on some of the unique forms of persecution that are specific to women and discusses the lack of women's issues within international refugee law. Lastly, this paper provides ways in which the guidelines can be improved to better support women fleeing gender based persecution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.169
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive LawFrench-language works237,207