MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408260258 · doi:10.1111/anti.70005

Decentring Labour: Looking at the Everyday in the Filipinx Diaspora

2025· article· en· W4408260258 on OpenAlexafffundabout
May Farrales

Bibliographic record

VenueAntipode · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsDiasporaSociologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Scholarship on the Filipinx diaspora has tended to be framed through the analytic of labour. Such dominant framings of the Filipinx diaspora tend to set parameters for a diasporic politics that rests on normative citizenship categories. In this paper, I look to the everyday ways Filipinos navigate their lives outside the boundaries of labour. Engaging with interviews conducted on the unceded territories of the Lheidli T'enneh peoples (aka Prince George, British Columbia, Canada), I propose that there are queer ways of disentangling labour configurations by paying attention to the everyday negotiations of Filipinx people. I highlight two ways that Filipinx peoples on Lheidli T'enneh territories show where we might decentre labour as the main way the Filipinx diaspora is theorised. First, I look at the ways in which they turn to the people and places they come from in the Philippines while abroad. Second, I attend to the manner by which Filipinx people approach and appreciate Indigenous sovereignties. I argue that, taken together, their commitments to the people and places they come from and their turning towards Indigenous sovereignties, form starting points that allow for political subjectivities not squarely attached to labour and normative notions of citizenship.

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)0.004
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0270.040
Scholarly communication0.0120.012
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntipodeSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207