MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3013033184 · doi:10.26522/ssj.v2020i14.2445

Migration, Intersectionality and Social Justice (Guest Editors’ Introduction)

2020· article· en· W3013033184 sur OpenAlexaffvenue
Daiva Stasiulis, Zaheera Jinnah, Blair Rutherford

Notice bibliographique

RevueStudies in Social Justice · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of VictoriaCarleton University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIntersectionalitySocial justiceSociologyEconomic JusticeLaw and economicsGender studiesPolitical scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This special issue contributes to a growing paradigm shift among migration scholars seeking to unpack the complexity of power relations, inequities and forms of social oppression among migrants, and intrinsic to border and migration policies, through the deployment of intersectionality as an analytic tool (Abu-Laban, 1998;Anthias, 2012;Bastia, Piper & Carron, 2011; Carastathis, Kouri-Towe, Mahrouse, & Whitley, 2018, Grosfoguel, Oso & Christou, 2015; Truong, Gasper, Handmaker & Bergh, 2014).Both migration and intersectionality are inextricably linked to social justice.Both involve processes of categorization that are deeply embedded in social science and policy, providing an important means by which we construct and apprehend the social world.Both also serve political purposes and agendas, and are associated with hierarchical systems of "worthiness" and access to bounded systems of rights (Crawley & Skleparis, 2018, p. 51).International migration involves authorized and unauthorized human crossings across borders of nation-states whose sovereignty is daily enacted through legally and (in accordance with international law) "legitimately" discriminating between those who are deemed to be desirable entrants and those defined as undesirable.In the latter category are migrants who defy border restrictions, rendering them prey to a host of risks and predations.This special issue explores the multiple pathways across state borders and the multiple jeopardies and experiences within the borders of "transit" and "destination" countries among migrants who embody the characteristics of those whom the late African-American poet and activist June Jordan (2005) describes as "the wrong people of the wrong skin on the wrong continent" Daiva Stasiulis, Zaheera Jinnah & Blair RutherfordStudies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 1-21, 2020 2 and who also may be the "wrong sex" and the "wrong gender identity," or the wrong religion, nationality or ethnicity.Most of the papers gathered in this thematic issue were originally presented at a conference on intersectionality and migration held in Ottawa at Carleton University in the fall of 2016.This conference was conceptualized by the three guest editors as part of a broader research and teaching partnership between Carleton's Migration and Diaspora Studies and the Institute of African Studies, and the African Centre for Migration and Society at Wits University, South Africa, to raise questions and explore opportunities on migration studies.It brought together scholars based in South Africa and Canada whose research on migration encompassed these two destination countries as well as South Korea, and where migrants originated from countries in southern and eastern Africa, south and east Asia, and Central and South America.It soon became apparent that the focus of most papers was trained on the most precarious of migrants produced by the intersection of their non-citizenship statuses with their location in low-wage work and "obfuscated employment relations" (Anderson, 2010, p. 300) or in statedesignated categories that left them highly vulnerable to hyper-exploitation and oppression.Commonly, destination and transit states either reinforce such precarity or ignore its effects in producing highly insecure and inhumane conditions and high probabilities of violence.Other transecting relations of power deepen and define migrants' exposure to structural insecurities vis à vis state authorities, employers, various mobility agents including traffickers, and hostile, xenophobic and fearful local populations.The topics in this special issue range broadly -and include work in segmented labour markets and struggles for livelihood; the links between family, security and nation-building; border, migration, health and employment policies; inter-migrant relations, law and legal reform; crimmigration and deportation.Collectively, the articles in this issue suggest that despite the many characteristics of migrants deemed "undesirable" through their location in racialized, gendered, class and other power relations, states both tolerate and selectively recruit certain groups of such "wrong" migrants who are perceived to serve significant purposes for states, employers and families of better-resourced residents.These include providing household care of children and elders, a captive cheap and disposable labour force, or (as in South Korea) biological reproduction of a nation grappling with declining fertility rates.The categories in which states place such migrants draw upon, compound, and deepen subjugating processes of racialization and class oppression, that are also gendered, sexualized, and may be intertwined with other stigmatizing dynamics.Rarely, a promise for more permanent status in destination countries is extended to low-wage or poor migrants, whose combined and intersecting characteristics may be regarded as producing a cultural or civilizational deficit or drain on state resources.Yet to the extent that such pathways to regularization or permanence exist, they are almost always contingent on the

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,043
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,143

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,017
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,003
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0430,013

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,084
Tête enseignante GPT0,405
Écart entre enseignants0,321 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations22
Publié2020
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueStudies in Social Justice→Même sujetSocial Policy and Reform Studies→Travaux en français237 207→