MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3194435853 · doi:10.3390/su13179536

Remittance Flows from Healthcare Workers in Toronto, Canada

2021· article· en· W3194435853 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iffath Unissa Syed

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemittanceImmigrationHealth careDemographic economicsBusinessMulticulturalismWork (physics)Variety (cybernetics)Economic growthPolitical scienceEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research indicates that Canadian healthcare workers, particularly long-term care (LTC) workers, are frequently composed of immigrant and racialized/visible minorities (VM) who are often precariously employed, underpaid, and face significant work-related stress, violence, injuries, illness, and health inequities. Few studies, however, have analyzed the contributions and impact of their labor in international contexts and on global communities. For instance, it is estimated that over CAD 5 billion-worth of remittances originate from Canada, yet no studies to date have examined the contributions of these remittances from Canadian workers, especially from urbanized regions consisting of VM and immigrants who live and/or work in diverse and multicultural places like Toronto. The present study is the first to investigate health and LTC workers’ roles and behaviors as related to remittances. The rationale for this study is to fill important knowledge gaps. Accordingly, this study asked: Do health/LTC workers in the site of study send remittances? If so, which workers send remittances, and who are the recipients of these remittances? What is the range of monetary value of annual remittances that each worker is able to send? What is the purpose of these remittances? What motivates the decision to send remittances? This mixed-methods study used a single-case design and relied on interviews and a survey. The results indicate that many LTC workers provided significant financial support to transnational families, up to CAD 15,000 annually, for a variety of reasons, including support for education and healthcare costs, or as gifts during cultural festivals. However, the inability to send remittances was also a source of distress for those who wanted to assist their families but were unable to do so. These findings raise important questions that could be directed for future research. For example, are there circumstances under which financial remittances are funded through loans or debt? What are the implications for the sustainability and impact of remittances, given the current COVID-19 pandemic and its economic effect of dampening incomes and wages, worsening migrants’ health, wellbeing, and quality of life, as well as adversely affecting recipient economies and the quality of life of global communities?

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainability→Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→