National Policies on Immigration Detention and the Global Compacts: A Comparative Analysis of Canada and France
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption of the Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees in 2018 marked a turning point in international migration governance. According to objective 13 of the Global Compact for Migration, States Parties have committed to use immigration detention as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives. As for the Global Compact on Refugees, States Parties and relevant stakeholders also pledged to contribute to the development of non-custodial and community-based alternatives to detention, particularly with respect to children. Five years later, the enhancement of human rights protection for migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers within national territories remains a challenge. We argue that two states of the Global North – Canada and France – are actually using the Global Compacts to push forward their own agenda on the international scene, as a tool to influence other states. Even if Canada and France have engaged in multilateral discussions on the regulation of migration and the protection of refugees through soft law instruments, we find that national practices have not been altered since 2018. As such, this paper will demonstrate that the implementation of the Global Compacts is, in fact, used to advance foreign national policy for both states.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it