MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910012048

Where are the Host Mothers? How Gendered Relations Shape the International Experiential Learning Program Experience for Women in the South

2018· article· en· W2910012048 on OpenAlexaff
Xochilt Hernández, Ashley Rerrie

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria (Association of Canadian Archivists) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTourism, Volunteerism, and Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatriarchyHost (biology)Experiential learningSociologyGender studiesFeminismEconomic growthPublic relationsPolitical sciencePedagogyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Host communities are becoming a new subject of interest in the research surrounding International Experiential Learning (IEL), but there is a dearth of knowledge surrounding the impact of IEL programs on host families, and on women in host communities in particular.This article contributes to this body of knowledge by examining the impact of IEL programs on host mothers in a rural community in Nicaragua that receives foreign students annually.Hernandez and Rerrie argue that the burden of labour of hosting students falls on women in host communities, who are expected to perform stereotypically feminine roles in order to be seen as 'good' mothers and access the benefits that come from the student visits.This care labour is feminized, unpaid or underpaid, and seen as a natural extension of their roles in the community in a patriarchal society.IEL programs rely on the social dynamics in communities that are shaped by patriarchy and global neoliberal systems that have added 'development' and 'community work' to women's roles in the community.Rather than empowering women, IEL programs also have a cost because of the highly gendered nature of the work involved for women in host communities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivaria (Association of Canadian Archivists)Same topicTourism, Volunteerism, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207