Navigating Cumulative Disadvantages of Migration, Care, and Employment Regimes: Dependent Immigrants in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article uses interviews with dependent immigrant women and men in Canada to analyze immigrant disadvantage in the labor market and workplace. Synthesizing feminist social policy scholarship with sociological studies of gender, work, and migration, we develop a framework for analyzing how migration, care, and employment regimes intersect to generate disadvantages. We find that gendered disadvantages embedded in dependent migration policies accumulate through a family-market care regime and a racialized, precarious employment regime. Both women and men dependent immigrants are disadvantaged in the labor market and workplace through multiple, accumulating dynamics; yet we also find different degrees and pathways to disadvantage, and multiple strategies to navigate it, shaped by gender and class. We argue that analyzing both the structure of inequalities produced by intersecting regimes and the ways people navigate them over time is key to understanding the contradictory mechanisms that both produce disadvantage and provide openings for strategic maneuvering.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".