MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803659323 · doi:10.4337/9781784710866.00027

Engendered movements: migration, gender and health in a globalized world

2016· book-chapter· en· W2803659323 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Denise L. Spitzer

Bibliographic record

VenueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationGlobalizationGender studiesPolitical sciencePerspective (graphical)SociologyDevelopment economicsEconomic growthPolitical economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intensity, density and breadth of contemporary global migration is unprecedented in human history, involving over 220 million people around the world, half of whom are women. In this chapter, the author situates findings from her own research undertaken in Canada, Southeast Asia and Ethiopia within the published literature to illuminate the dynamic and complex interactions of migration and gender _ intersecting with other social markers _ and their impact on health and well-being. In so doing, she strives to articulate the pathways as to how macro- and meso-level phenomena such as neoliberal globalization, constructions of gender and racialized categories, and immigration policies, are implicated in the health and well-being of individuals and communities. This holistic and interactive perspective allows the nuancing of the health outcomes of the engendered movements of individuals, households and communities within and across borders under the conditions of neoliberal globalization that can further contribute to theory, health services, immigration and health policies, and community activism.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooksSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207