Temporary Workers in the United States and Canada: Migrant Flows and Labor Outcomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes migratory flows and labor outcomes for temporary migrants from Mexico who participate in the H-2A visa program in the United States and the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program in Canada. Using data from the Mexican Migration Project, we analyze the determinants of taking a first trip to each country with temporary work documents, the financial and labor circumstances that migrants experience while working abroad, and the factors that determine the likelihood and amount of money sent home to Mexico as remittances or held onto and brought home to Mexico as savings. We find that temporary agricultural workers migrating to both countries come from rural backgrounds, but those working in the United States earn higher wages and experience shorter workdays than those in Canada. Nevertheless, total annual work hours and earnings are quite similar for both groups of migrants. We observe few differences between the two groups in remittance amounts sent home, but find that temporary workers in the United States return home with more savings than do those working in Canada.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it