MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gender, Migration, and the Pursuit of Security

2020· book-chapter· en· W4206731381 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cynthia J. Cranford

Bibliographic record

VenueCornell University Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacializationImmigrationDevaluationCitizenshipGender studiesState (computer science)SociologyBorder SecurityResidenceWork (physics)Political scienceRace (biology)Demographic economicsPoliticsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter discusses how dynamic processes of gendering, racialization, and precarization make diverse people into personal support workers who lack security at the labor market and intimate levels. Enduring gendered inequalities that relegate more women than men to unpaid domestic work serve to structure and justify the concentration of women in this paid domestic work and its devaluation. What immigrant women from professional and working-class backgrounds had in common that shaped their eventual location in personal support was the marginal place of their nation of origin in the global economy vis-à-vis the United States, Canada, and by extension Britain. Gendered and racialized migration shaped the location of immigrant workers in North America, but their entry into personal support had as much to do with dynamics in the local labor markets of Toronto and Los Angeles, namely the intersection of racialization, gendering, ageism, and precarious employment, supported by the state. Social networks certainly opened up jobs to immigrant workers with few other options, but these jobs were precarious.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCornell University Press eBooksSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207