MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402852984 · doi:10.32674/wn99zd72

Taking an Intersectional Approach: Immigrant Women Language Teachers’ Lived Experience of Identity

2024· article· en· W4402852984 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura Brass, Jennifer Jenson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Underrepresented & Minority Progress · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationIdentity (music)Lived experienceSociologyIntersectionalityGender studiesPedagogyPsychologyPolitical sciencePsychoanalysisArtAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores skilled immigrant women language teachers’ lived experience of identity through an intersectional feminist lens. It examines how women teachers speak about themselves and their lives as immigrants and aims to understand the complex implications of identity and power relations by focusing on intersectional understanding of inequities. Data was generated through in-person and virtual individual interviews with six participants living and working across Canada. The findings revealed the following main challenges and ongoing barriers: discrimination, overqualification, financial limitations, a lengthy process of re-credentialing and professional reintegration, and insufficient government support. Furthermore, this study sheds light on how heteronormative frameworks pervade immigrant women’s personal and professional lives, intersecting with their identities vis-à-vis gender, race, ethnicity, country of origin, immigration status, and English as a second language. These categories collectively and individually present systemic barriers and sites of oppression that negatively impact an already marginalized minority group— internationally highly qualified immigrant women language teachers.

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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Underrepresented & Minority ProgressSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207