MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403519981 · doi:10.1177/10497323241285768

“You’re Just Stuck in a Hole, Really”: Mechanisms of Structural Racism Through Migrant Agricultural Worker Housing in Canada

2024· article· en· W4403519981 on OpenAlexafffundabout
C. Susana Caxaj, Anelyse M. Weiler

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRacismMigrant workersAgricultureSociologyDemographic economicsPolitical scienceGender studiesCriminologyEconomic growthGeographyEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Worldwide, migrant agricultural workers face poor housing conditions and related health challenges. A growing body of research has documented the substandard housing often occupied by this largely racialized population. Yet limited health research has examined mechanisms of structural racism that determine this group's poor housing and health. Drawing on interviews with 151 migrant farmworkers in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada, we documented the housing experiences faced by migrant agricultural workers and examined the role of structural racism in determining housing and health inequities. Our analysis identified four overlapping mechanisms by which migrants' housing and health were determined by structural racism: (1) scarcity, (2) segregation, (3) sacrifice, and (4) stagnation. These mechanisms both reinforced and normalized housing hardships, making it difficult for migrants to escape unsafe or inadequate housing. Our findings point to the need for immediate action to improve housing conditions for this population and to interrogate the racist design that keeps migrant workers at the margins of society.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
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 head0.353
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207