"Is This Not Enough?": Asymmetries in Institutional Accountability and Collective Sensemaking in the Case of Canada's Algorithmic Visa Triage System
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This paper examines how algorithmic accountability in Canada's visa system is articulated institutionally and experienced by applicants across borders. We analyzed Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)'s Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) for the temporary resident visa (TRV) triage system using the algorithmic decision-making adapted for the public sector (ADMAPS) framework and analyzed Reddit discussions among applicants using a mixed-methods approach. We show that while institutional artifacts emphasize transparency, procedural safeguards, and bounded impacts, applicants engage in collective sensemaking to interpret opaque decisions, often relying on peer knowledge amid uncertainty. We identify three asymmetries between how institutional accountability is structured and how people perceive the process: epistemic asymmetry in access to decision logic, jurisdictional asymmetry in exposure shaped by geopolitical positioning, and temporal--relational asymmetry in how waiting and uncertainty are experienced. We emphasize why it is important to shift attention from institutional design to the uneven distribution of experiences with public-sector algorithmic governance. Together, these contributions demonstrate how algorithmic governance systems in the context of transnational migration produce structured asymmetries not captured by institutional disclosure frameworks, and how extending ADMAPS can account for those uneven translations of accountability.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 92 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2026.
Builds on
19 of 92 references.
References · 19
- 2023Qwen Technical Reportcited by 3,344
- 2018UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reductioncited by 2,898
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,089
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
- 2022BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedurecited by 801
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 384
- 2019Explainability Fact Sheets: A Framework for Systematic Assessment of Explainable Approachescited by 101
- 2020Factors Influencing Perceived Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making: Algorithm Outcomes, Development Procedures, and Individual Differencescited by 41
- 2023Understanding accountability in algorithmic supply chainscited by 40
- 2021Fairness Perceptions of Algorithmic Decision-Making: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literaturecited by 27
- 2021Outlining Traceability: A Principle for Operationalizing Accountability in Computing Systemscited by 26
7 more
- 2021A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child-Welfarecited by 23
- 2023Algorithmic Harms in Child Welfare: Uncertainties in Practice, Organization, and Street-level Decision-Makingcited by 12
- 2023Rethinking "Risk" in Algorithmic Systems Through A Computational Narrative Analysis of Casenotes in Child-Welfarecited by 10
- 2023The DSA Transparency Database: Auditing Self-reported Moderation Actions by Social Mediacited by 10
- 2024Automated Transparency: A Legal and Empirical Analysis of the Digital Services Act Transparency Databasecited by 7
- 2025The Datafication of Care in Public Homelessness Servicescited by 6
- 2020Immigration Document Classification and Automated Response Generationcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.