MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4384694309 · doi:10.22215/etd/2023-15557

Negotiating Canada’s Labour Market: The Case of Nigerian Women in Ontario

2023· dissertation· en· W4384694309 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ekpedeme Edem

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationEquity (law)NegotiationIntersectionalityLegislatureEnforcementPolitical scienceLabour lawGender studiesSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this dissertation, I analyze the realities of Nigerian women economic migrants in the Ontario labour market.I use critical race theory and intersectionality lenses to examine the lived experiences of high-skilled Nigerian women in the labour market.I argue that despite legal measures for employment equity, labour market differentiation occurs for the study group.Systemic discrimination produces and maintains aggravated levels of inequality within the labour market.I trace the historical trajectory of legislative frameworks on employment equity in Canada and Ontario, highlighting key legislation.A nuanced understanding of the experiences of the interviewed Nigerian women and civil service organisations reveals that legal measures can construct unfavourable labour market experiences for some groups of people and that legal frameworks alone are incapable of stemming systemic discrimination.I demonstrate how the challenges faced by Nigerian women economic migrants in the Ontario labour market go beyond the legal to the sociolegal.My analysis calls into question the efficacy of current measures to alleviate systemic discrimination in the labour market.This dissertation suggests that a review of current antidiscrimination measures (including enforcement mechanisms) is essential to deal with the contemporary challenges of high-skilled Nigerian women in Ontario.A rethinking of employment equity (as is), vis-a-vis Sub-Saharan African women in Ontario, is due.greatest cheerleader and sounding board in the starting stage of my study.Had he not passed away, we would be celebrating this feat together.I also dedicate this to all racialized women showing up and showing out despite the barriers faced.Also, I dedicate this to the younger me, who has not lost the sparkle in her eyes, the smile on her lips, or the ability to dream.Completing a Ph.D is a collective effort, so I will not fail to acknowledge people who have contributed to the realisation of this day.I thank my Ph.D examiners, Amrita Hari and Margaret Watson, committee members Christina Gabriel and Ania Zbyszewka, and of course, my caring supervisor Megan Gaucher for guidance, direction, and support throughout the process

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0600.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLabor Movements and Unions→French-language works237,207→