How transnational actors change inter-state power asymmetries: The role of the Indian diaspora in Indo-Canadian relations on migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall aim of this thesis is to explore what emigration state power means in relation to the rules that govern international migration. This thesis challenges the conventional view that within a bilateral migration relationship the migrant-sending state is a 'rule-taker' compelled to accept the consequences of the migrant-receiving state’s immigration and integration policies. Using India-Canada migration relations as its empirical case, this thesis examines how diaspora populations can serve as a transnational resource for the sending state to mitigate power asymmetries with the receiving state in bilateral migration relations. Part I of this thesis examines the Indo- Canadian diaspora’s use of Canadian tribunal, electoral and lobby channels to advance immigration and integration policy outcomes that further both the interests of the diaspora and the Indian state. Part II considers the diffuse and ideational mechanisms through which the Indian state influences the diaspora's political mobilisation abroad. The diaspora’s political activities in the host state, combined with the sending state's transnational influence over facets of diaspora identity, interests and organisational capacity, register important effects on Canadian migration policy that bear on the distribution of power between sending and receiving states. These effects cannot be explained on a purely inter-state model of migration relations, but are accounted for by the framework developed and applied in this thesis. The Conclusion addresses the scope conditions under which this thesis’ theoretical framework and conclusions derived within it from the single-case study may allow for a wider comparative approach across other cases in future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".