MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097939890 · doi:10.1080/07393148.2020.1840198

Family Reunification as an Earned Right: A Framing Analysis of Migrant Workers’ Pathways to Neoliberal Multicultural Citizenship in Canada

2020· article· en· W3097939890 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rupaleem Bhuyan, Kate Yoon, Lorraine Valmadrid

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Political Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersFederation for the Humanities and Social Sciences
KeywordsCitizenshipFraming (construction)MulticulturalismMigrant workersPolitical scienceFamily reunificationGender studiesSociologyDemographic economicsImmigrationEconomic growthLawEconomicsPoliticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article examines how the right to sponsor family members’ immigration is framed by migrant caregivers in relation to Canadian legislation and political rhetoric. We focus on official immigration policy and political rhetoric between 2014–2018, a period when Canada imposed stringent language and education requirements on migrant workers seeking permanent residence. By examining how political rhetoric frames migrant caregivers as not earning “enough” to migrate with their families, we illustrate how lawmakers promote tolerance for differential inclusion within multicultural discourse. Migrant caregivers, the majority of whom originate in the Philippines, similarly employ market-based values to position themselves as deserving the right to sponsor their family members’ immigration. They also draw upon traditional ethics of reciprocal obligation, however, to frame their relationship to Canadian employers and the state in ways that reconstruct the terms of multicultural citizenship 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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0390.023
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Political ScienceSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207