MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W213109281

Transnational Ruptures: Gender and Forced Migration

2007· article· en· W213109281 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Vannina Sztainbok

Bibliographic record

VenueResources for feminist research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransnationalityRefugeeGender studiesMigration studiesSociologyPoliticsPopulationTransnationalismImmigrationNarrativeForced migrationPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transnational Ruptures: Gender and Forced Migration Catherine Nolin Hampshire: Ashgate, 2006; 246 pp. With this book, Catherine Nolin makes visible the historical-geographical specificity of a little studied population, and interrogates some common understandings in migration studies. Transnational Ruptures looks at the experiences and narratives of Guatemalans who came to fleeing political violence, a migration that peaked from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. Nolin foregrounds the impact of state violence in Guatemala and immigration/refugee policy in Canada on refugee journeys, settlement experiences, and on social relations across borders (p. 58). As with any focused study, this means that other aspects of the immigrant/refugee experience receive less attention. Thus, following a discussion of the relevance of Transnational Ruptures, I will briefly address a matter that is critical for all social researchers: What is included and what is left out through a specific methodological gaze? One of the central questions raised by the book is regarding what makes research transnational? Is it because the subjects of the study have crossed borders, or because the researchers have? For Nolin, the answer lies in the linking up of political/social/economic processes and networks that traverse geographies. Transnational Ruptures is by no means positing one perspective. A valuable overview of studies (chapter 2) foregrounds the insights, tensions, and contradictions in this broad field. The language of transnationality itself is interrogated as the study dispels any illusion that the participants of the study are enmeshed in transnational circuits. Instead, immobility characterizes their lives due to continued fear of violence and economic hardship. Canadian travel restrictions for Guatemalans serve more often than not to reinforce the ruptures of family rather than facilitate flows (p. 163). Nolin also concurs with those scholars who note that movement does not undermine the nation state. The increase in the number of Guatemalan in the 1980s led to the reification of national boundaries through more restrictive immigration requirements in and a crack down on illegal refugees in the US. Through an analysis of statistical data, Nolin connects these political moves to changes in refugee routes. Since they could no longer travel directly from Guatemala to Canada, many were forced to make the dangerous overland passage through Mexico and the US, to seek asylum at the Canada/US border. For Nolin (p. 106), this demonstrates the power of government policy, as well as the agency of those fleeing violence. Nolin and her assistant, Finola Shankar, do cross borders. They interviewed and immigrants living in various cities in Ontario, as well as relatives who remain in Guatemala, regarding the effects of forced relocation on their families. The multi-sited aspect of the research enriches the complexity of these histories. Interviews with relatives sometimes reveal discrepant accounts of the events leading to exile and beyond. Instead of dismissing the participants' claims, Nolin (p. 127) draws on, and extends, feminist theorizing about the narration of experience. Aware that her own positioning as researcher may inform participants' responses, she posits that the contradictions are constituted through trauma. People are strategic regarding what they can tell, and what they must tell, in order to make sense of the violence and displacements that mark their lives. And what they can say depends on where they are located. …

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.023
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResources for feminist researchSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207