MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086440661 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238525

Transnational migration and Mexican women who remain behind: An intersectional approach

2020· review· en· W3086440661 on OpenAlexafffund
Higinio Fernández‐Sánchez

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsCINAHLIntersectionalityContext (archaeology)MEDLINEQualitative propertyQualitative researchMedicineGender studiesGerontologySociologyGeographySocial sciencePsychological interventionPolitical scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the scope, range, and nature of the existing literature on Mexican women who remain behind in their communities of origin while their partners migrate abroad. DESIGN: A scoping review informed by an intersectionality framework was conducted over four months, January-April 2020. DATA SOURCES: The electronic databases Medline, PsyINFO, Global Health, CINAHL, Gender Studies Database, Dissertations & Theses Global, LILACS, IBECS, and Sociological Abstracts were searched. REVIEW METHODS: Articles were included if they focused on Mexican women who remain behind across transnational spaces. Two independent reviewers screened and selected articles. Data were analyzed and synthesized using descriptive statistics for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data. RESULTS: A total of 19 articles were included for analysis; within those, the methods used included quantitative (n = 5), qualitative (n = 11), mixed methods (n = 2), and intervention (n = 1). Most studies lacked a theoretical framework (n = 10); the majority were empirical published studies (n = 11), and most used interviews (n = 12) and surveys (n = 6) to collect data. All of the articles studied cis-heterosexual Mexican women. Major areas identified were 1) research context, 2) gender roles, and 3) women's health. CONCLUSION: Implications for practice and future research 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.

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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207