Cosmopolitan beginnings? Transnational healthcare workers and the politics of carework in <scp>S</scp>ingapore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent times, the increasing scholarly interest in the contested place of the migrant in the cities of the North and South has drawn mainly on frameworks of integration, multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism. Much of the literature pays little heed to gender dynamics and accords little value in particular to the roles that female migrants play in actively shaping the urban contexts in which they live. We contend that by shifting attention to the more feminised spheres oriented towards the private sphere away from public display (including that of ‘carework’ which is increasingly performed by female migrant workers), we may be able to better glimpse cosmopolitanism at work. This is because the social relations of care provide more fertile ground for developing what Glick Schiller et al. (2011, Ethnic and Racial Studies 34 399–418) call ‘cosmopolitan sociability’. This is not to negate the findings of feminist analyses that suggest that carework, particularly in globalising cities restructured by neoliberal agendas, reproduces and extends forms of social inequalities. Indeed, even as the locus of carework shifts from local to foreign women from less developed countries, patriarchal norms and unequal gender relations are reinforced, and in fact intersect with other power geometries based on race, nationality and class. As illustration of the politics of carework, this paper discusses the place of migrant healthcare workers (primarily Chinese, Indian, Filipino and Burmese women) in institutionalised settings in the rapidly globalising city of Singapore. While their presence in the global city raises moral anxieties not only about the shift of carework from the family to outside the home, they also alert us to the possibilities and limits of a cosmopolitan approach to care transcending boundaries of race, culture, language and nationality.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".