Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caregiver migration programs and policies in Canada have  undergone numerous changes since the implementation of the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP) in 1992. Although changes made by the Canadian government between 1992 and 2020 claimed to “support†migrant caregivers, many caregivers continue to face precarious conditions. The purpose of this Major Research Paper is to argue that caregiver migration programs and policies need to be reassessed and challenged as they continue to embody problematic labour practices that render migrant caregivers vulnerable. Broadly, this research brings literature on racism, sexism and colonialism into one conversation in order to better understand the root causes of inequality faced by migrant caregivers in Canada. The significance of this work lies in its provision of a contemporary understanding of caregiver migration, especially in light of a global pandemic, in order to advocate for policy amendments that will genuinely support migrant caregivers and lead to the elimination of exploitative care labour practices. Key Words: Canadian Caregiver Migration Policies, Caregiver Migration, Decolonial Lens, COVID-19, Migrant Care Workers, Migrant Caregivers, Care Work.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".