MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Near and far, with heart and hands: care work in the context of refugee settlement in Canada

2019· article· en· W2937476488 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lindsay Larios

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Care and Caring · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeImmigrationPoliticsCare workContext (archaeology)Settlement (finance)Gender studiesIdentity (music)NarrativeMeaning (existential)Work (physics)Political sciencePosition (finance)SociologyLawGeographyPsychologyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within immigration politics, refugee women are often constructed as care receivers, and the value of their care work in their homes, in their communities and transnationally is absent from immigration politics. The research explores how refugee women understand and situate their relational identity, the meaning of their caring actions and how this is shaped by their relative position within Canadian society. The goal of this analysis is to highlight the importance of care work and how it is shaped by and reproduces inequalities, and to offer counter-narratives to those that have emerged within immigration politics on the contributions of refugee women to Canadian society.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Care and CaringSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207