Artificial Intelligence in International Immigration Management: A Comparative Legal Analysis of the United States, Canada, and the European Union
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a strategic technology that leads the future, and major developed countries worldwide regard its development as a significant strategy to enhance national competitiveness and maintain national security. Currently, the United States, Canada, and the European Union are actively exploring the application of AI in the field of immigration, gaining valuable experience. However, they also face risks and hidden dangers such as data security and technological dependency. This article conducts a comparative analysis of the practical cases and legal frameworks of AI application in international immigration management among the United States, Canada, and the EU. It delves into how these jurisdictions balance technological innovation with the protection of citizens' rights through their legal and regulatory mechanisms. The research focuses on specific instances of AI adoption in immigration services, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of their legal frameworks, and assessing their impact on the efficiency and security of immigration management.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".