MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163707705 · doi:10.1093/heapol/czq024

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Mexican Nursing

2010· article· en· W2163707705 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allison Squires

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Policy and Planning · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Nursing Research
KeywordsFree trade agreementContext (archaeology)Thematic analysisNursingPolitical scienceFree tradeBusinessInternational tradeMedicineQualitative researchGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of nurse migration, experts view trade agreements as either vehicles for facilitating migration or as contributing to brain-drain phenomena. Using a case study design, this study explored the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on the development of Mexican nursing. Drawing results from a general thematic analysis of 48 interviews with Mexican nurses and 410 primary and secondary sources, findings show that NAFTA changed the relationship between the State and Mexican nursing. The changed relationship improved the infrastructure capable of producing and monitoring nursing human resources in Mexico. It did not lead to the mass migration of Mexican nurses to the United States and Canada. At the same time, the economic instability provoked by the peso crisis of 1995 slowed the implementation of planned advances. Subsequent neoliberal reforms decreased nurses' security as workers by minimizing access to full-time positions with benefits, and decreased wages. This article discusses the linkages of these events and the effects on Mexican nurses and the development of the profession. The findings have implications for nursing human resources policy-making and trade in services.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.422 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Policy and PlanningSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207