MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117471133 · doi:10.1111/imig.12804

“We are part of this place, but I do not think I belong.” Temporariness, Social Inclusion and Belonging among Migrant Farmworkers in Southwestern Ontario

2020· article· en· W3117471133 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tanya Basok, Glynis George

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Migration · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersMitacs
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)EthnographySociologyMigrant workersSense of placeInclusion–exclusion principleSense of communityGender studiesPolitical scienceEconomic growthSocial scienceLawAnthropologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Canadian temporary migration regime has been widely criticised for its failure to provide protections and address migrant needs. This article contributes to these critiques by analysing how temporariness impacts the sense of belonging and perceptions of social inclusion among farmworkers in Canada. The sense of inclusion and belonging is vital for individuals’ sense of well‐being, and therefore, a critique of temporariness is incomplete without it. Based on ethnographic research conducted in 2018–2019 in a rural community in Southwestern Ontario, Canada, it documents that, despite certain initiatives to make temporary migrant workers feel welcomed, migrants have not grown attached to this place. We situate farmworkers’ limited sense of belonging in the exclusionary architecture of this labour migration regime. We argue that two structural elements in particular make it impossible for most migrant farmworkers to feel connected to Canada—the forced separation from their families, and the lack of mobility within the labour force.

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)0.004
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0230.013
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations53
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational MigrationSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207