MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400209957 · doi:10.4324/9781003499787-5

“We Know We Have to Work Like a ‘Donkey’ in Canada”

2024· book-chapter· en· W4400209957 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tania Das Gupta, Sugandha Nagpal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDonkeyWork (physics)Computer scienceHistoryEngineeringArchaeologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this chapter, we discuss the pre- and post-migration narratives of young Punjabis around employment expectations and experiences. This work is based on qualitative interviews conducted with young Punjabis in Punjab, India, and Toronto, Canada, as part of a study on COVID-19 and Punjabi migration. The literature on immigrant employment in Canada has largely emphasized either a structural analysis around obstacles faced or their integration and sense of belonging and identity, both in a post-migration context. We expand this literature by emphasizing the agentive manoeuvring of young Punjabis around structural obstacles across both contexts by drawing on the framework of “transnational navigation.” We argue that the migrants’ pathway framed by state policies, their stage of migration and social networks shape their employment expectations and navigations. Across both sites, migrants use the idea of temporariness to cope with the precarious working conditions they expect to face or are facing in the immediate aftermath of migration. These navigations are oriented at enhancing the migrants’ positioning within the existing social hierarchy and do not question the basis of their structural disadvantage.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0400.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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