MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013158179 · doi:10.1080/1369183x.2020.1731988

Intermediaries and transnational regimes of skill: nursing skills and competencies in the context of international migration

2020· article· en· W3013158179 on OpenAlexaffabout
Margaret Walton‐Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntermediaryCredentialContext (archaeology)BusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceMarketingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Market-based migrant intermediaries play an important role in skilled migration. Skilled workers, especially in regulated professions such as nursing, face increasingly complex testing and credential assessment systems. ‘Regimes of skill’ control and filter membership to these professions by reproducing already existing power imbalances in the global regulation of skilled labour. This paper examines these processes in the case of Indian trained nurses who use educational brokers to enrol in Canadian post-graduate programmes with the intention of practising in the Canadian health care system. The study elaborates on the ‘regime of skill’ in nursing, revealing its maintenance through interactional and transnational connections between intermediaries, educators and regulators in terms of codifying and translating skills and competencies between jurisdictions with different cultural and professional histories and norms of nursing. Findings reveal that intermediaries operate transnationally in a symbiotic manner with more powerful actors in order to exploit regimes of skill and expand their market share.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ethnic and Migration StudiesSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207