Neoliberalism’s Effects on Asian Immigration: A Gender Based Analysis of Systemic Inequality in Canadian Immigration Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s immigration policy was historically checkered with discriminative regulations, namely posing restrictions on potential Asian migrants and their potential path towards citizenship through The 1885 Chinese Immigration Act. In 1967, The Immigration Refugee Protection Regulation (“IRPR”) was introduced, claiming to eradicate all explicitly discriminative provisions and provide a new pragmatic point-based system to objectively assess all potential migrants. Despite this shift towards multiculturalism and equality, Canada’s immigration regime still continues to reinforce racial and gendered inequalities. This paper argues that the rise of neoliberalism presented immigration as an economic transaction, reproducing and reinforcing historical forms of inequality as subterfuge for inclusivity. A focus on market structures and individualistic points-based assessment exacerbated global oppressions of women in labour, privatizing migrant women into domesticity. IRPR further reinforced heteronormative and traditional family unit, perpetuating the notion that women are predominantly dependents and subordinate to the man. As a result, the influence of neoliberalism on immigrant policy resultantly left immigrant women invisible in the Canadian public sphere.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".