MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157199576 · doi:10.26443/firr.v9i2.14

Neoliberalism’s Effects on Asian Immigration: A Gender Based Analysis of Systemic Inequality in Canadian Immigration Policy

2019· article· en· W3157199576 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Esli Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueFlux International Relations Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationNeoliberalism (international relations)Immigration policyCitizenshipInequalitySociologyMulticulturalismPolitical scienceImmigration lawPolitical economyGender studiesPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.369 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlux International Relations ReviewSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207