MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Theoretical Frameworks for Studying Female Marriage Migrants

2008· article· en· W2158661771 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology of Women Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationVulnerability (computing)DeportationHuman rightsDomestic violenceGender studiesCriminologyPsychologyArranged MarriageSociologySocial psychologySuicide preventionPoison controlPolitical scienceLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transnational marriages account for a significant proportion of family-based immigration to North America. An increasing number of immigrant men are choosing to marry women from their countries of origin, and an increasing number of nonimmigrant men are choosing to marry women from other countries. Existing studies on the experiences of foreign brides entering North America have highlighted their vulnerability to spousal maltreatment, including unique forms of immigration abuse (e.g., threats of deportation). Their vulnerability to maltreatment has been attributed to the gender-insensitive nature of family immigration policies, the women's lack of awareness of their rights and immigration status, and their husbands' cultural beliefs about women's roles. This article describes three interrelated theoretical frameworks that can inform further research, practice, and policy development related to female marriage migrants. The frameworks draw on cross-cultural models of gender-based violence, seminal work on the psychology of women, and international human rights research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.335 · 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