Revisiting Social Reproduction: Migrant Care Workers and Their Entitlements in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I question the temporary/permanent divide insofar as migrant care workers’ legal entitlements are concerned with reference to the Canadian Caregiver Program, which is characterized as one of the best temporary migrant worker programs globally. I problematize the temporary/permanent distinction by critiquing the private market exchange-based relationship on the basis of which the Program is legally formulated. I argue that any caregiver program should see caregivers – irrespective of their national or foreign origin – as fully contributory members of society and thereby entitled to an extensive range of citizenship rights and entitlements. While this proposal is not completely novel, what I offer through this article is a regulatory justification for migrant caregivers’ claim to full socio-economic citizenship rights and entitlements. I develop this justification by drawing on – and reconceptualizing – the economic productivity-focused social reproduction perspective. In this article, then, I make two points: first, I propose a theoretical reconceptualization of socially reproductive work and, second, by evaluating migrant care workers’ status in Canada, I argue that on the basis of social reciprocity, caregivers cannot be considered temporary insofar as their entitlements are concerned.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".