Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has often been the perception that Northern states admit immigrants out of generosity, offering security and shelter to people forced from their own countries because of political and economic circumstances. This collection—based on case studies with immigrants—quickly dispels this myth. Immigrants are admitted to serve economic or demographic interests. They also serve to pay back the receiving countries’ own historical and political indebtedness. It is the North that both produces and regulates the migration flows, and it is the North that reaps the benefits. Northern migrants to the South, generally, improve their careers and livelihood, whereas migrants from the East and West regress. \nHow does Canadian society fare when placed within a global background? The immigrant case studies in this book—Ghanaian women learning English, migrant women sex-workers in our cities, foreign-trained professionals, East Asian women and sexual harassment, and Canadian aid workers in the South—all contribute to perform a reality check for the notion of Canada as a “caring and sharing” country.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".