Toward transnational care interdependence: Rethinking the relationships between care, immigration and social policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intersections of international migration, care and welfare states have attracted increasing attention from social policy scholars, yet the focus on the commodification of care has led them largely to ignore kin-based unpaid care. Based on a study of Chinese grandparents’ caregiving experiences in Canada, this article shows how transnational families of Chinese skilled immigrants have participated in redistributing care resources, including emotion, time and cultural knowledge, across generations and countries. The article argues that states – in particular, the government of Canada as the host country – still have a crucial role to play in untangling the contradictions of immigration and care and addressing the inequalities embedded in transnational caregiving. To pursue global social justice, social policy makers need to take into account policy effects that go beyond the nation-state and its citizenry and intersect with such aspects of immigration as the spatial reconfiguration of the family, cultural change and ageing.
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 | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".