Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article critically examines how disability discrimination manifests within the immigration systems of Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Despite Canada's reputation as a welcoming nation, the article argues that its points-based immigration system perpetuates ableist notions, treating disabled immigrants as economic burdens. The analysis explores the historical context of Canada's immigration system, its impact on disabled immigrants, and draws comparisons with other nations. The examination of the United States reveals discriminatory practices and ableist language, while the United Kingdom's points-based system emphasizes economic contribution, hindering disabled immigrants' integration. In Australia, despite having an anti-discrimination act, disabled immigrants face barriers, including detention. The article concludes that these countries, despite differing immigration systems, share a commonality in excluding disabled immigrants based on eugenic and ableist ideologies rooted in neoliberal democracies. Overall, the points-based systems, intended to eliminate biases, inadvertently reinforce discrimination against disabled individuals, highlighting the need for a more inclusive approach to immigration policies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".