"Nannies strike back": the representation of live-in caregivers and the Live-in Caregiver Program in the mainstream and ethnic press
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilizing Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this study examines the representation of live-in caregivers (LC) and the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP), between 2007 and 2013, in eleven mainstream Canadian newspapers (N=32) and five Filipino-Canadian newspapers (N=31). It contributes to the extant media analyses on the LCP by including the perspective of the ethnic press and, thus, the voices of LC, LC advocates, and members of the Filipino community. It also examines the recent hype surrounding the emergence of au pairing as a suitable caregiving option for Canadian families in light of the declining number of LC following the April 1, 2010 reforms to the LCP. This study concludes that the mainstream Canadian press portrayal of LC and their children is congruous with the “Problem Approach,” while that in the ethnic newspapers is congruous with the “Agency Approach” providing a space to both empower LC and resist negative mainstream portrayals.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".