MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W935199479

Canada-USA Safe Third Country Agreement

2014· article· en· W935199479 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jessica Sanghera

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeEthnic groupGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceRacismArgument (complex analysis)Ethnic CleansingWork (physics)Law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the argument that Canada continues to practice discriminatory measures aimed at restricting access into the country for those wishing to enter Canada on grounds of refuge, or seeking asylum, based solely on one’s ethnic identity or origin. This barrier is the Canada-USA Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA). My work begins by providing historical accounts of overt racism that early Chinese and Sikh migrants faced at the hands of the Canadian government in hopes of deterring further migration of such ethnic groups, and keeping Canada a 'white nation'. Fast forward to present day and there continues to be efforts aimed at deterring certain people from entering the country. Through the Canada-USA STCA the government is able to restrict those they do not deem fit for entering, and settling within Canada. This work covers the concepts of shifting geographic borders, the illegality of such an agreement as a direct violation under the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the legal ramifications of the STCA, and lastly the notion of disappearing refugees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMigration, Refugees, and Integration→French-language works237,207→