MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790343482 · doi:10.1080/10371656.2018.1443415

“We don’t feel free at all”: temporary ni-Vanuatu workers in the Riverina, Australia

2018· article· en· W2790343482 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kirstie Petrou, John Connell

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)ParallelsCashProject commissioningEconomic growthAgricultureGeographyDevelopment economicsEconomicsPolitical sciencePublishingFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seasonal worker programmes are promoted as a quadruple win, bringing benefits to participating countries, employers and workers. These benefits, however, are most often framed as economic, while the social costs of such schemes have received less attention. In 2009, Australia introduced a short-term agricultural employment scheme to provide unskilled labour for farmers, and temporary work for migrants from Pacific island states. The scheme has contributed to economic development in Australia and in the participating island nations. Migrants from Vanuatu constitute the largest group from the Melanesian states. Temporary ni-Vanuatu migrants in the Riverina region of New South Wales, Australia, have received substantial cash incomes, but this has come at some social cost, as they constitute an un-free precariat. Institutional structures have not responded by providing adequate pastoral care or monitoring, or changed employment, residential, and visa conditions. Parallels exist between the present employment scheme, century-old plantation systems, and similar labour migration schemes in New Zealand and Canada which emphasise the exploitative contexts of temporary agricultural employment schemes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural SocietySame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207