MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111842165 · doi:10.1080/14672715.2011.623523

MIGRATION AND GENDER IDENTITY IN THE RURAL PHILIPPINES

2011· article· en· W2111842165 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Łukasiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Asian Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgrarian societyGender studiesNegotiationSociologyIdentity (music)Economic growthPolitical scienceAgricultureGeographySocial scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remittances associated with labor migration have been hailed by many as the most direct form of development to rural migrant-sending areas of the Global South, but focusing only on the quantity of cash flows does little to contextualize how migration has transformed social structures in rural areas. Through a qualitative focus on divisions of agrarian labor and decision-making, this article illustrates how the out-migration of men from rural areas of the Philippines is challenging preexisting gender ideologies of agricultural labor. The article examines how wives “left-behind” by their migrant husbands negotiate forms of farm work and responsibility that are culturally prescribed as “masculine.” While a number of studies have detailed how female migration can destabilize conventional gender roles—as housebound husbands are shown to take up social reproductive work often considered “feminine”—the impacts of male migration on the participation of housebound wives in productive farming practices has been less studied. This article presents several vignettes of stay-at-home mothers who venture into farming and it analyzes how these women interpret their own gender identity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Asian StudiesSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207