‘I will eat the whole world’: exploring how mobilities shape migrants’ food-related occupations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Previous studies on migrants’ food-related occupations have largely focused on their transition from the sending to the receiving country’s foodscapes, overlooking their ongoing transnational and mobile practices. Objective This article examines the interrelation between migrants’ transnational mobilities and their food-related occupations. Methodology A secondary analysis of interviews with 16 Vietnamese migrants in Metro Vancouver and seven returnees from Canada to Vietnam used a transnational and mobilities theoretical approach to explore how cross-border movements, media, and culinary influences shape migrants’ food-related occupations. Results Themes highlight dimensions including: a) Routine, mobilities and adaptation; b) (Transnational) social connections; and c) Global mobilities and power dynamics. Conclusion Theorizations of transnationalism and mobilities offer a valuable framework for examining food-related occupations in occupational therapy and occupational science. This framework transcends simplistic distinctions between sending and receiving cultures, encouraging occupational therapists and researchers to critically engage with migrants’ transnational identities and occupations, moving beyond assimilationist approaches.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".