MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388296126 · doi:10.1177/09646639231210270

The Revolving Door of Im/Migration: Canadian Refugee Protection and the Production of Migrant Workers

2023· article· en· W4388296126 on OpenAlexaffabout
Azar Masoumi

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial & Legal Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeePolitical scienceConceptualizationImmigrationDemographic economicsDevelopment economicsLabour economicsLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper places the seemingly distinct projects of refugee protection and temporary foreign worker programs alongside one another to reveal their interlinked relationship. I argue that despite its seeming humanitarian exceptionality, refugee protection is deeply implicated in the production of both the category and supply of temporary foreign workers for the Canadian economy. I demonstrate that the defining limitations of refugee law in relation to questions of class and economic deprivation are integral to the conceptualization of the category of the migrant worker. I then engage with statistical data to show that patterns of refugee adjudications in Canada have contributed to maintaining the supply of temporary foreign workers. In particular, I show that Canada has consistently rejected refugee claims from key source countries of migrant workers, namely Jamaica and Mexico. By refusing these claims, Canadian refugee protection has constituted Jamaican and Mexican nationals as inappropriate subjects of permanent protection and, subsequently, primed them for incorporation as temporary foreign workers. In effect, Canadian im/migration has operated like a revolving door: pushing some nationalities out of the permanent protection of refugee status while pulling them into the precarious opening of temporary labour migration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

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 venueSocial & Legal StudiesSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207