Internal Flight Anarchy: Points of Divergence from UNHCR Guidelines in Canadian Decision Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the years, Canadian decision makers have come to apply the concept of ‘internal flight alternative’ (IFA) more expansively than recommended by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Given the significant proportion of refugee claims that are refused on the basis of this concept each year, this divergence of interpretation has a real-life impact. To examine this phenomenon, the article provides a brief overview of the IFA concept, including a review of the scholarly literature and UNHCR guidance. Next, it traces the concept’s development in Canadian law and highlights points of divergence with UNHCR’s position. Finally, the article discusses potential strategies for realignment. The goal is to encourage practitioners and decision makers to think more deeply about the IFA concept, to raise awareness in regard to existing scholarship and applicable norms, and to ensure that these norms are applied in a conscious, humane, and consistent manner.
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 | 0.061 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".