Citizenship in the Twenty-First Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resolving Status and Limiting Access: 2002-2009At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the rules pertaining to citizenship and naturalization had remained relatively stable for over twenty years.Then, as it had been under the 1977 legislation, Canadian citizenship was defined as a person born in Canada, 31 born abroad to Canadian parents, or naturalized in Canada.Immigration and citizenship reform was part of the Conservative Party's 2006 election platform.In 2008, it introduced amendments to the Citizenship Act.32 These focused on two main issues that had received considerable media coverage.The first was designed to resolve the situation of the lost Canadians.The second was aimed at limiting rights to the inheritance of Canadian citizenship. Lost CanadiansAn early campaigner for the lost Canadians was someone whose own citizenship unwittingly ended when his father became an American citizen.Don Chapman lobbied extensively throughout the 1990s for people like himself, whose citizenship had been lost due to changes in citizenship legislation.He convinced the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to investigate the issue.The CBC found that over 200,000 individuals in Canada may have lost their citizenship due to gaps left by successive Citizenship Acts and regulations.33 Many were unaware they were not Canadian, and only found out when they applied for a passport, claimed social security, or were required to undergo a security check for a new job.31 Excluding children of foreign diplomats, consular officers, and their employees and employees of a United Nations agency.Citizenship Act, 1977, s. 3(2).32 Bill C-37, "An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act," which came into force on 17 April 2009.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".