Contentious mobilities and Cheap(er) Labour: Temporary Foreign Workers in a New Brunswick Seafood Processing Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) is highly contentious. Particularly contentious are those parts of the program that have allowed for exploitative labour practices and the replacement of Canadian workers. Mobility for employment has been increasing, and researchers have focused on different types of mobile workers ranging from international (including the TFWP) to intra-provincial migrants, often in isolation from each other. Less research has focused on multiple mobilities within one industry to understand how and why labour force composition and employee mobility patterns change over time. Also under researched is why demand exists for TFWs in areas with high unemployment. This paper uses a case study of the seafood processing industry (both wild and farmed) in a rural region of New Brunswick to explore this industry’s claims about labour shortages and serial reliance on differently mobile labour forces over time. It draws on findings from a review of relevant documents and ethnographic fieldwork including interviews. Using the historical changes in the (im)mobility patterns of processing workers in this region, this paper highlights how the increased use of the TFWP by seafood processing companies is tied to manufactured raced and gendered employer practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".