Refugee Status Determination in Canada: Ensuring Procedural Fairness at the Immigration and Refugee Board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) of Canada was created with the intentions of providing every refugee claimant within Canada the opportunity to tell their stories in a formal oral hearing. With the creation of the IRB and oral hearings came the responsibility of ensuring procedural fairness for these refugee claimants throughout the refugee status determination (RSD) process. However, overtime governments have changed, public attitudes over refugees have shifted and public policies have been introduced which have impacted the way that the IRB’s institutional purpose and objectives have become prioritized and re-negotiated. Specifically, although the IRB has many objectives listed in the Immigration and Refugees Protections Act (IRPA), sovereignty and security has become increasingly favored over humanitarian responsibilities which has consequently diminished procedural fairness for refugee claimants. Namely, inconsistent waiting and processing times, concerns of bias in decisionmaking and the overall inaccessibility of the claims process.
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 | 0.078 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".