Health Care Experiences of Stateless People in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statelessness in Canada is an emerging site of inquiry with recent investigations into its causes and consequences, focusing on legislative and policy analyses and the lived experiences of stateless persons. Yet, health care experiences generally and access to mental and physical health care in particular remain under-researched. This study attempts to bridge this gap by examining how statelessness impacts physical health, mental health, access to health care services, and overall well-being. To answer these questions, we conducted semi-structured interviews with stateless or formerly stateless persons to understand their views and experiences. The study reports on negative health outcomes in four broad areas:The limited ability of stateless persons (SPs) to access health care.Mental health challenges.The failure to treat health issues until they have reached a dangerous point and the reliance on self-care strategies.The negative impact of lack of status on four social determinants of health: employment, education, housing, and food security. From these findings, the paper makes three arguments:Legal Status is a key determinant of health and lack of status leads to negative health outcomes.SPs heavily depend upon others for their life-needs, which can lead to exploitation and encourage forms of adaptive and negotiated agency.SPs in Canada experience a physical and mental liminality [a condition of uncertainty]. The paper concludes that Canada should recognize stateless individuals either as stateless or as Canadian nationals, and should implement a context-tailored institutional response to statelessness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".