Left-Behind Women in the Context of International Migration: A Scoping Review
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
Introduction: Despite the research on left-behind children, less is known about left-behind women across transnational spaces. The purpose of this scoping review was to assess the extent, range, and nature of the existing body of literature on left-behind women whose partners have migrated across borders. Method: This scoping review was guided by the five-step approach of Arksey and O’Malley. Fifty-four articles that focused on left-behind women across transnational spaces were included. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Results: Left-behind women were primarily from Mexico ( n = 13) and the migrants’ place of destination was primarily the United States ( n = 14). We identified two major themes: (a) women’s social, economic and cultural conditions and (b) women’s well-being. Discussion: We identified significant knowledge gaps regarding left-behind women in the context of transnational migration. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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