MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414827981 · doi:10.29173/psur408

Reforms, Reports, Reckoning

2025· article· en· W4414827981 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shairene Veronica Asuncion

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Science Undergraduate Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecarityPrioritizationFace (sociological concept)Foreign policyMigrant workersGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2014, Canada introduced sweeping reforms to its Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) that significantly heightened the precarity of migrant workers. A decade later, new policy changes have emerged, this time, alongside a damning United Nations report accusing Canada of enabling modern slavery through its treatment of its temporary foreign workers. This paper argues that Canada’s long standing prioritization of economic growth consistently eclipses its proclaimed commitment to human rights, reducing migrant workers to disposable labour units rather than rights-bearing individuals. Tracing the trajectory of the TFWP over the last decade, this paper examines the 2014 reforms, the classification of low-wage migrants as ‘essential’ during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the 2024 rollback of those pandemic-era measures. At the heart of the analysis lies a central question: Do the 2024 policy changes represent a continuation of Canada’s prioritization of economic growth, or, in the face of international condemnation, do they signal a potential towards a more just, human-rights-oriented approach to labour migration?

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venuePolitical Science Undergraduate ReviewSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207