MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407318389 · doi:10.1080/01419870.2024.2441909

Dreaming the Canadian Dream: citizenship pathways and migration influencers in Canada

2025· article· en· W4407318389 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maria Cecilia Hwang

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnic and Racial Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipInfluencer marketingDreamSociologyPolitical scienceGender studiesPsychologyLawPoliticsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores how Filipino migration influencers mediate aspiring immigrants’ pursuit of Canada’s complex and ever-evolving citizenship pathways. Through content analysis of 25 YouTube channels, it reveals how influencers promote the Canadian Dream as attainable but risky goal requiring personal and professional sacrifices. These influencers draw on their migration experiences to serve as essential resources, guiding their viewers through citizenship’s gates toward legal, sociocultural and economic integration well before embarking on their journeys. However, by normalizing extreme downward mobility as a necessary immigrant bargain to achieve a better life for their families and children, migration influencers risk reinforcing the subordinated status of Filipino workers in Canada’s segmented labor market. This article contributes to migration scholarship by identifying influencers as digital migration intermediaries and highlighting the need to rethink how advancements in ICTs are transforming how citizenship pathways are navigated today.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnic and Racial StudiesSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207