Statelessness in Canada: socio-political exclusion and the negation of 'stateless persons' human rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given their lack of recognised citizenship and their inability to obtain travel and identification documentation, stateless persons are at high risk for both social and political exclusion. Consequentially, stateless people experience human rights violations in the forms of; the inability to move freely, the use of arbitrary detention, and the denial of access to services that grant fundamental rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Canada does not currently have a stateless determination process for identifying statelessness within its law, an issue that likely reinforces why statelessness is a highly under-researched issue within Canadian academia. This body of work provides an overview of the current state of affairs in Canadian literature, in the form of a literature review. By outlining gaps within Canadian academia, this paper provides recommendations for areas of additional research. Doing so ultimately highlights the importance of ensuring all persons are afforded citizenship rights. Keywords: Statelessness, Canada, Citizenship, Human Rights, International Obligation, State Sovereignty, Securitization, Immigration Detention, International Human Rights Law.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".