Unrecognizing Refugees: The Inadmissibility Scheme Replacing Article 1F Decisions in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the interwoven relationship between article 1F (the exclusion provision) of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the inadmissibility scheme based on the grounds of security, violation of human or international rights, serious criminality, or organized criminality (SHSO) in Canada. Incorporating evidence from a literature review, case law, statistics, and interviews conducted with practitioners in Canada, this research demonstrates that Canada deliberately chooses to review the cases of refugee claimants about whom there are serious reasons to consider that they have committed grave crimes under the inadmissibility scheme rather than under article 1F. Accordingly, the article argues that the exclusion provision in Canada, through practice and with an intentional design, has turned into the inadmissibility proceeding. This shift from the exclusion provision to the inadmissibility scheme is problematic since using the broader SHSO grounds instead of article 1F violates Canada’s international obligations under the Refugee Convention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".