Enforcement Against Exploitation, Working Hard or Hardly Working? : Exploring How Canadian Policy Discourse Problematizes the Labour Exploitation of Migrant Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis aims to outline how the labour exploitation of migrant workers is problematized in contemporary Canadian labour migration policy discourse; the consequences of this problematization(s), and possibilities for creating an alternative critical space for discourse. Using concepts of (social) harm, (un)freedom, and (hyper)precarity as departure points for analysis, this project endeavours to untangle problematizations of migrant worker exploitation from their representations in Canadian policy discourse through a post-structural policy analysis. From this theoretical perspective, policy discourse will be analyzed employing Carol Bacchi’s (2009) ‘What is the Problem Represented to Be?’ (WPR) methodology. With this theoretical and methodological basis, the goal of this thesis is to make space to open a critical dialogue between the consequences of the global neoliberal capitalist order, Canadian policy discourse, the Canadian border/migration regime, and the conditions of migrant labourers caught in the middle of this complex nexus.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".