Women, Gender, and Immigrant Studies: State of the Art in Adult Education in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1980s, immigrant studies have taken a feminist turn. This paper takes stock of how Canadian adult educators have contributed to this movement and vice versa. Specifically, it engages in an ethnographic content analysis of CASAE proceedings since 2000, and other scholarly publications in the field. The review shows that increasing research attention has been paid to immigrant women’s experiences. It also reveals competing discourses on the roles that immigrant training programs and community-based organizations have played in the work and life experiences of immigrant women. Theoretically, the literature indicates a resurgent feminist influence. Adult learning theories, such as transformative learning, communities of practice and informal learning, as well as the adult education orientations for liberation, empowerment and social action also feature prominently in the scholarship. While research interest in immigrant women is robust, the existing literature is largely limited by methodological nationalism. It also needs to move beyond a focus on women’s experiences to address gender relations as implicating both men and women, and both individuals and institutions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".