Transnational Caregiving: Experiences of Visible Minority Carer‐Employees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, approximately 35% of individuals in the workforce are carer employees (CEs). Workplaces lack support programs and initiatives resulting in CEs taking absences from work and opting for early retirement. These circumstances additionally decrease productivity and economic growth, and cause strains on the psychological, physical, and financial well‐being of CEs. Many newcomers to Canada are providing care to those across transnational boundaries while being employed. These immigrants are known as transnational CEs (TCEs). The research questions this secondary analysis aims to answer are “ What are the experiences of visible minority TCEs before and after the Covid-19 pandemic in London, Ontario, and what are the implications of these experiences for policymakers and employers? ”. A qualitative thematic analysis by Braun & Clarke using the ATLAS.ti coding software was conducted to examine the dataset on South American, African, Pakistani, and Syrian descent TCEs. The philosophical orientation that underpins this study is constructivism and the theoretical framework that informs the findings is the intersectionality theory. Data analysis generated from the 29 participants in the study revealed three main themes: (1) the variations in gender‐based transnational care, (2) cultural expectations of caregiving, and (3) recommendations to policymakers and employers. The results of the study suggest that male TCEs are more likely to provide financial caregiving, whereas female TCEs do more physical and emotional caring. Furthermore, culture influences caregiving as there are higher expectations from the only or eldest child in the family and those who live abroad. The findings also illustrate that there is a lack of caregiver‐friendly workplace policies (CFWPs) in the workplaces (e.g., family responsibility leave) and TCEs lack knowledge about CFWPs. They recommended financial relief, employer support, and extended vacation/family leave to help them balance work and transnational caregiving. Study implications include employer engagement to promote and sustain visible minority TCEs’ health and well‐being and educating TCEs and employers on the importance of CFWPs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".