Bibliographic record
Abstract
This web archive strives to offer a documented commentary on the most recent addition to the Canadian resettlement scheme, the Blended Visa Office-Referred (BVOR) program. The program constitutes a modified version of private sponsorship of refugee and immigrant applicants; it has to be examined in relation to both private and government resettlement schemes, and in comparison to the historical use of private sponsorship for Indochinese refugees. The documents presented here allow an examination of the background debates that led to the institutionalization of the BVOR program, the challenges BVOR is intended to address, public and political debates concerning the proposed division of public and private responsibility, and the links made between this particular model and the public acceptance of the en masse resettlement of select Syrian refugees in Canada. This refugee crisis raises important political and legal questions for both the Canadian public and Canadian policymakers. Who is deemed to be a deserving refugee, who is eligible for resettlement and based on what criteria, keeps changing. The current and future saliency of migration could be succinctly revealed by examining factors such as which categories of migration hold significance, how they are constructed and determined, and by whom. The debate continues and must do so above and beyond policy measures, legal requirements and formal immigration regimes. It is also of utmost importance to underline that private sponsorship programs are to be in place as a complementary element to government-assisted resettlement commitments. They cannot eradicate the necessity of the Canadian government to fulfill its international obligations and humanitarian commitments in the face of mass displacements. The Syrians are unlikely to be the last group to suffer such a fate.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".