The possibilities of solidarities and resistances in the context of the claimant-lawyer collaboration on the preparation of an asylum claim
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian refugee determination process (the context studied in my thesis) is a complex process that is difficult to navigate without assistance. As the process is particularly complicated, people claiming refugee status may be represented by a lawyer or other counsel, which happens in most cases (Rehaag, 2011). It has already been shown that representation is a critical element in the success of an asylum application (Rehaag, 2011). This paper is concerned with the claimant-lawyer relationship in this context and, more specifically, with the possible solidarities and resistances that can emerge from this relationship as part of preparing an asylum claim. Although the claimant-lawyer relationship is marked by a significant power differential, certain solidarities and resistances emerging in this context have already been highlighted in the literature. For example, the role of immigration representatives and refugee claimants and their way of working together in choosing what to write about in the asylum forms regarding prevailing Western norms and expectations have already been explored (Jacobs & Maryns, 2022; Oxford, 2008, 2016). Gender, race, class, and other intersecting axes of social division play a role in this context as they impact not only the client-lawyer relationship but also the expectations of decision-makers towards refugee claimants (Oxford, 2008). In this paper, I present the part of the data I collected for my thesis (through semi-structured interviews with refugee women and lawyers and observations of their encounters) on this issue.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".