Humanitarian bargains: private refugee sponsorship and the limits of humanitarian reason
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes Canada's private sponsorship of refugees to explore the conceptual and practical limits of humanitarian reason. In private refugee sponsorship, sponsors channel their humanitarian impulse to resettle refugees in a time-limited partnership with both the state and the refugees they sponsor. To gain insight into how sponsors perform their role in this structurally and temporally bounded trajectory, we conducted a national online survey of 530 sponsors who volunteered to support Syrians resettled to Canada after November 2015. Our analysis draws primarily from written comments shared by survey respondents. We find that over time, sponsors resort to tacit ‘humanitarian bargains’ to mediate between their initial commitment to save refugees’ lives and their ongoing quotidian experiences of intervening in and shaping refugee lives. These bargains become visible when sponsors evaluate sponsorship by reference to a set of expectations and judgements about sponsored refugees, their fellow sponsors and the state. We suggest that the concept of the humanitarian bargain has explanatory force beyond refugee sponsorship.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".