Exclusions In Canadian sanctuary cities: Building More Inclusive cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sanctuary city movement is intended to advocate for the basic rights of illegalized migrants, challenge federal immigration policies, and support accessible services for all residents of the city, striving to make sanctuary cities inclusive spaces. The success of inclusivity within sanctuary cities in Canada comes into question when exclusions exist for subgroups of illegalized migrants such as those who have committed crimes, do not have status, or are inhabitants of the city. Furthermore, cities that claim to be sanctuaries continue to marginalize other members of society such as people who identify as Black, Indigenous, or People of Colour (BIPOC). I argue that since Canada is a settler colonial state, the legacy of colonialism is fundamental to understanding the context in which sanctuary cities in Canada operate and how sanctuary city movements in Canada can move towards more inclusivity. Through a scoping literature review, I uncover how exclusion can be detrimental to allyship and conclude that advocates for illegalized migrants, must work to address deep-rooted colonial issues of racism and marginalization within Canadian cities.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".