MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387665002 · doi:10.1177/08445621231203086

Housing Conditions and Health Implications for Migrant Agricultural Workers in Canada: A Scoping Review

2023· review· en· W4387665002 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
C. Susana Caxaj, Anelyse M. Weiler, Julia Martyniuk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsOntario Council of University LibrariesUniversity of TorontoUniversity of VictoriaWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAgricultureMigrant workersEnvironmental planningEngineeringBusinessRegional scienceEconomic growthGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migrant agricultural workers face various health inequities that have led to preventable illness and death. This paper investigates how material housing conditions have shaped physical and mental health outcomes for temporary foreign workers in Canadian agriculture. We conducted a scoping review of literature on migrant agricultural worker housing in Canada published between 2000-2022, analysing insights on the physical quality of workers' housing in relation to international frameworks on housing quality. Our review revealed a range of housing-related health risks, including: (1) Sanitation, food security, and water; (2) Thermal safety, electricity, and utilities; (3) Habitability of structure, air quality, and exposure to hazards; (4) Spacing, privacy, and co-worker relations and; (5) Geographic proximity to necessary services and social opportunities. Although housing has been increasingly recognized as a social determinant of health, little research examines how migrant farmworkers' accommodations shape their health outcomes, particularly in Canada. This scoping review provides timely insights and recommendations to inform research, policy, and public health interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.356
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.114 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations29
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207