MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Filipino youth professionals in Alberta, Canada: shaping gender and education landscapes?

2019· book-chapter· en· W2939210944 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Veronica G. Caparas

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Press eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapitalismGender studiesPolitical scienceSociologyEthnic groupDominance (genetics)NarrativePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter adopts Critical Theory in introducing and examining the narratives of Filipino youth professionals in Alberta, Canada as reflective of the interplay of age, gender, and migration that influences or is influenced by the neoliberal policy regime of internationalization of education that, in turn, gives rise to instances of decredentialing and recredentialing within spatial (i.e., household and state) and power (patriarchy, ethnicity, capitalism) logics of both home and host countries. In particular, these narratives focus on Filipino youth in relation to their choice of upholding their basic human right of international mobility for the good life and their perceived educational preparedness in migrating to Alberta, Canada. The narratives uncover the nature of Alberta’s international education framework as procuring profit from Filipino youth professionals who end up as workers first and professionals second. Filipino youth professionals’ credentialing journey takes on the dynamics of the power logics of ethnicity and capitalism operating within the spatial logics of the household and the state that result in Canada’s dominance over their lives and exploitation of their creativity and labor. This chapter concludes with the call for Canada to review and reformulate Canadian (Albertan) policies as they relate to foreign-trained qualifications.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Press eBooksSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207