Remedies for Non-Citizens under Provincial Nominee Programs:\nJudicial Review and Fiduciary Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, more and more people get permanent residency under Provincial and Territorial Nominee Programs (PTNPs). Despite this new reality, there is today no detailed examination of the consequences of PTNPs for immigrants' rights and protections. In this paper, we seek to fill this gap. As we show, PTNPs have no statutory basis and officials who administer these programs do not exercise statutory authority of any kind. An alternative would be that these programs become "law"; then the decisions made under them would bejudicially reviewable for conformity with that law. However, it is unlikely to happen because "flexibility" is seen as the key characteristic of PTNPs. We contend that the concept of a fiduciary relationship and fiduciary obligation has evolved greatly in the last decades in Canadian law, and we suggest, as an alternative to judicial review, extending a fiduciary duty to public decision makers. As in any new subject area of research, we hope that our findings will form the basis for further study on this understudied, and yet very important topic.
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 | 0.021 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".