Bibliographic record
Abstract
We began this review of contemporary Canadian immigration policy by looking back to the immigration policies that preceded it.The history of Canadian immigration policy shows a progression from narrow nativist policies to policies that are far more open, inclusive, and accountable compared to years past.Efforts were made to limit the unchecked exercise of executive discretion, embedding greater due process protections in immigration processes, and ensuring robust parliamentary oversight and meaningful public consultation on major changes to immigration policy.While current immigration policy remains relatively open and non-discriminatory, our review also highlights that since the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2001, elements of past practices have resurfaced by which policy initiatives were adopted in an arbitrary manner with only cursory public discussion and debate.For example, since 2001 economic and family class immigration together averaged 85 per cent of Canada's annual admissions.Within these streams, since 2008, ministerial authority has expanded to a degree not witnessed in nearly half a century.This includes the authority to change assessment criteria, ranking systems, quotas, and processing measures and to cancel and initiate new programs.Major changes have not been required to first go before Parliament for review.This has reduced the level of legislative and public scrutiny.Because Ministerial Instructions are frequently altered, there is less certainty on how immigration policy is applied now, and in the future, and less opportunity for careful evaluation and assessment.Conclusion: Where to from Here?
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 | 0.019 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.092 | 0.020 |
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".