Assessing Human Trafficking in Canada Flawed Strategies and the Rhetoric of Human Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper will present the argument that Canada's rhetoric of protecting the human rights of trafficking victims is at odds with its practice. Trafficking victims are treated essentially the same as any other irregular migrant, and the specter of trafficking is invoked to justify acts which arguably violate Canada's international human rights obligations. This paper will offer an overview of what little information is available regarding the extent of trafficking in Canada, and then will conduct a close examination of the Canadian approach to trafficking and its victims. In addition to considering the logic and consequences of the Canadian strategy for trafficking victims, Canada's practices are also considered in light of its obligations pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (hereinafter "Palermo Protocol"). This paper will close with a brief look at how Canadian border control measures may increase the likelihood that asylum seekers will be forced to put themselves into the hands of smugglers and traffickers if they wish to bring a claim for protection in Canada.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".