Is health a labour, citizenship or human right? Mexican seasonal agricultural workers in Leamington, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) trade liberalisation combined with post-9/11 border securitisation means North America increasingly relies on pools of temporary foreign labour, particularly in the agricultural and service sectors. Despite being temporary, these workers often spend most of their years on foreign soil, living and working in isolated rural communities, far from their own families and communities. Migrants' mental and physical health suffers due to hazardous and stressful working conditions, sub-standard housing, lack of social support and limited access to health and social welfare services. Assuming access to health is a basic human right, who is responsible for the health of temporary foreign migrant workers? Is it the nation-state? or the Employers and/or unions? or Civil society? Research and practice show that a combined multisector approach is best; however, such initiatives are often uneven due to questions of sovereignty and citizenship rights. Community-based organisations (CBOs) have emerged to advocate for and serve migrants' social and welfare needs; analysis of CBO projects reveals an uneven application of rights to migrants. Using a comparative case study from Canada, this project contributes to understanding how civil-society helps to activate different types of health care rights for migrants, and to create an informed policy that provides migrant workers with access to a wider range of human and health rights.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".