The missing link: Gender, immigration policy and the Live-in Caregiver Program in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Temporary labour migration is on the rise in the developed world. In May 2009, Canada's Parliamentary Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration issued a report on the state of temporary and undocumented foreign workers in Canada, making a series of recommendations to ensure that labour needs can be met through temporary foreign workers and that those workers are able to successfully integrate into Canadian society. The report highlights one Canadian immigration program, the Live-in Caregivers Program, which offers migrant workers the opportunity to apply for permanent residency after working 24 months as a live-in child or elder care provider. The authors argue that the report errs in holding up the Live-in Caregivers Program as a model for other temporary foreign worker programs. Although the path to permanent residency is an important provision of the Live-in Caregivers Program, a gendered analysis of the program shows that the women who come to Canada as caregivers continue to face vulnerability and exploitation because of key structures of the program, most importantly the live-in requirement. Until policy reform accounts for the results of such a gendered analysis, the Live-in Caregivers Program does not ensure that caregivers will be able to integrate successfully into Canadian society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".