Bibliographic record
Abstract
The four chapters that comprise Part Two each draw on research conducted to examine, in turn, the experiences of transnational social workers in Canada, England, Australia, and Aotearoa New Zealand. While the different studies varied in their designs, the numbers of participants involved, and the methods of analysis used to interpret the data, the stories told in each chapter reveal some fundamental consistencies across the four countries. Transnational social workers have been, and continue to be, drawn from across the world to fill social work positions in these jurisdictions. This is the ‘opportunities’ side of the equation. Each of the chapters alludes to the fact that governments in the four countries have aligned their immigration and labour market policies to capitalise on the increased transnational mobility of professional labour, to make it easier for employers to attract transnational professionals and for the transnationals themselves migrate into these nations. It is noteworthy that this has produced a certain degree of ‘churn’ amongst social workers across the four jurisdictions: each of the four national studies includes transnational social workers from the other three countries, in addition to those from many other countries as well. In Chapter Four, Marion Brown, Annie Pullen Sansfaçon, Stephanie Éthier and Amy Fulton describe the ‘pull’ factor to Canada as ‘a discourse of possibility and opportunity’: this is a discourse that is actively mobilised in each of the four countries under discussion in the four chapters in this Part.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.371 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".