MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392156067 · doi:10.1080/1369183x.2024.2315357

Middle class nation building through a tenacious discourse on skills: immigration and Canada

2024· article· en· W4392156067 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yasmeen Abu‐Laban

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationMiddle classClass (philosophy)Political scienceGender studiesSociologyMedia studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers the discursive emphasis in post-1960s Canadian immigration policy on ‘skills’ in the context of adopting a formally race-neutral immigration policy, and embracing what has been called middle class nation building. Using policy documents and statistical information, it is argued that a clear preference for newcomers with ‘skills,’ has been sustained despite shifts in policy over time, because ‘skills’ serve as a floating signifier. The preference and morphing nature of ‘skills’ is exemplified in three distinct policy initiatives advanced by the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau since assuming power in 2015: (1) the 2016–2017 Global Skills Strategy for temporary ‘skilled’ workers; (2) the Economic Mobility Pathways Project Canada undertook in partnership with UNHCR in 2018–2019 to facilitate the entry of ‘skilled’ refugees; and (3) COVID-19 pandemic developments which drew attention to ‘essential skills’ in services and care and facilitated a novel, albeit circumscribed, pathway to citizenship for some temporary workers and refugee claimants. Given Canada’s decades-long preference and global leadership in pursuing ‘skilled labour migration’ it is important to recognize the ways in which the legitimating of ‘skills’ amounts to a middle-class nation building that hides, and even reinforces, inequities in the Canadian and global contexts.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ethnic and Migration StudiesSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207