THE TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER PROGRAM IN CANADA: LABOUR MARKET SOLUTION OR OPEN DOOR FOR ABUSE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most controversial and often-discussed aspects of the modern global migration system is the issue of precarious labour in the context of migration. In both unauthorized migrants, in particular in the United States and Europe, and authorized guest worker regimes, most prominent in the GulfMonarchies, employers and firms have found large pools of labour not subject to the same legal and social norms as the native workforce. This trend, which has existed since at least the post-World War II period but has been rapidly increasing in the 21st century, has not been without controversy, from a variety of political perspectives. Precarious workers in these conditions are sometimes accused of “stealing†jobs from native-born workers or of driving down working conditions in the receiving countries. Conversely, many NGOs concerned with human rights have drawn attention to the various abusive and exploitative elements embedded within these regimes. Workers are often tied to one particular employer, may not be subject to minimum wage or other workplace legislation and often live in squalid conditions.This paper will investigate the various controversies around the Canadian Temporary ForeignWorker Program (TFWP), with a particular focus on the effects, or lack thereof, of recent reforms to the program. In doing so, it will compare the policies and application of Canada’s program to other, similar programs in developed countries in order to create an accurate portrait of the programs stated and implicit goals and how successful it is achieving them. In addition, the paper will attempt to locate the TFWP’s place within the wider system of migration control policy in the Canadian context, and the extent to which it is congruent with the broader stated values of these policies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".