Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the lived experiences of camp wives, with children less than five years of age, from the northwestern British Columbian communities of Hazelton, Smithers, and Terrace.The women's domestic partners work away in resource extraction labour camps for a minimum two week period.The purpose of this study centred on exploring the Chapter One: IntroductionThe oil, gas, and mineral extraction sectors constitute the "main economic driver[s] of the northern region [of British Columbia (B.C)]" (Northern Development Ministers' Forum, n.d., pp. 1).In this sector, the use of work camps and a remotely located work force engaged in longdistance labour commuting (LDC) is a sector norm (McGillvray, 2005).LDC employment is used in exploration, construction, and operational resource extraction activities (Community Development Institute (CDI), 2015).The use of LDC labourers provides industry with a flexible and mobile workforce.This workforce is used for temporary large scale industrial projects; to accommodate labourers in remote settings, at times without road access; and in small communities without the infrastructure to accommodate a large increase of resident workers (CDI, 2015).LDC employment requires extended absences by workers from their home communities and families; overwhelmingly, these workers are male.Workers in LDC employment are employed in occupations, such as: professional, semi-skilled/skilled, trades, management, and coordination (Gallegos, 2006).There is a lack of research exploring the experiences of women as the partners who remain at home while their husband works away for extended periods in a labour camp.Within public sector and academic research on LDC employment, there is a significant focus on regional and community development, psychosocial and occupational health matters relating to the workers, as well as the male workers' perspectives on the context (Barton, 2002;
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 | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".