Researching the in-land refugee status determination process in Canada in light of postcolonial feminist scholars’ criticisms: reflections from my thesis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this presentation, I am interested in presenting the postcolonial feminist criticisms that inform my theoretical framework and how they influence my research project, specifically data collection and analysis. I particularly refer to the postcolonial feminist scholars’ criticisms of Western feminist perspectives and theories (Mohanty, 2003; Spivak, 1988; Taha, 2017). The two significant lacunae from White feminists literature are taken into consideration: 1) the little or no attention put on the notion of race and 2) “the denial of the socio-historical context that characterizes the work of Western Feminists in their approach toward “Third World” women” (Tyagi, 2014, p. 47). By way of illustration, I would like to show how I used these theoretical tools in chapter 5 of my thesis, a chapter on refugee claimants’ challenges and decisions when required to provide details about why they are seeking protection in Canada, highlighting what these tools allowed and the challenges I faced in their application.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it