Experiencing foreigners : Taiwan's low-skilled immigrant workers and policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1980s, intental and external economic, social, and political restructurings in Taiwan created a need for low-skilled foreign labourers (FILs).Today after more than a decade of Taiwanese foreign labour policy, these FLLs workers, especially female FLLs, have been repeatedly mistreated and discriminated against.Using Taiwanese governmental reports and statistics, academic articles, newspaper, and popular writings, this project discusses common features of current international migration patterns and presents four theories to explain these features.This project also presents and examines the evolution and the impacts of Taiwan's foreign labour policy.Special attention is given to female migrant labourers.The findings of this project indicates that FLLs are mistreated, Taiwanese workers' long-term employment prospects maybe undermined, and Taiwanese society in general is negatively impacted.To improve foreign low-skilled labourers' working and human rights in Taiwan, this project makes three recommendations.Firstly, it is necessary to improve current foreign labour policy by refining its regulation, extending its jurisdiction to include foreign domestic and health workers, and ensuring its implementation.Secondly, the Taiwanese public needs to be informed in order to develop a keener understanding of the value and importance of FLLs.Thirdly, Taiwan must follow international labour standards for the protection of its foreign low-skilled workers.Overall , this project helps to provide a basis for anticipating migration problems resulting from this emerging aspect of globalization; while this project focused on Taiwan, the findings could be analogous to the conditions in other countries, thereby exposing similar problems and providing possible solutions.I offer my appreciation to many people and institutions that all generously helped me to conduct this research.I would, first, like to profoundly
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".