MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409166299 · doi:10.1080/13621025.2025.2480033

Assembling the legal status precarity of teen girls: family practices, kinning and dekinning as the fragile work of legal status

2024· article· en· W4409166299 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia Landolt

Bibliographic record

VenueCitizenship Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecarityLegal statusCitizenshipWork (physics)SociologyPolitical scienceGender studiesLawCriminologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The contact point between the family and the state is a key site in the production of youth legal precarity. The family has become an essential component of youth migration projects in light of the violence and precarities that cut through global migration politics and policy. As family and kin navigate a securitized global migration system that criminalizes movement, they are engaging, contending, interpreting and navigating state power. Conceptualizing the family as a dynamic set of practices, rather than a unified object, we examine how the ‘contact point’ between the state, family and kin assembles youth’s precarious non/citizenship. We present data from retrospective, in-depth interviews with five young women who settled in Toronto as teenagers and lived for extended periods of time without authorized immigration status and largely under the radar of the state. Drawing on the non/citizenship assemblages framework, and the concept of the ‘work of legal status’, we demonstrate the importance of kinning, re-kinning and de-kinning processes as a mediator of youth’s legal status precarity.

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)0.002
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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.310 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCitizenship StudiesSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207