MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015687449

Temporary Worker, Permanent Alien: An Analysis of Guest Worker Programs in the United States and Canada

2014· other· en· W7015687449 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholars' Bank (University of Oregon) · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAssociation for Canadian Studies in the United StatesUniversity of Oregon
KeywordsNucleofectionLiquationArticular cartilage damageGestational periodHyporeflexiaPretext
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last several decades, economic globalization has presented many `advanced' economies with a dilemma between facilitating the flow of goods while simultaneously regulating the flow of labor. This contradiction has manifested itself in the immigration policies of Canada and the U.S., which have each pursued distinct strategies for importing foreign workers to maintain global economic competition. Such workers, whether legal `guest workers' or `illegal' immigrants, reside within the boundaries of the state, yet remain permanent aliens. This dissertation explores how guest worker policy specifically and immigration policy more broadly have been constructed and debated in national political discourse from 1990 to 2010. In addition, research in two rural case study communities reveals how labor markets and social geographies are re-shaped by the interaction between workers of varying legal and `illegal' statuses. This multi-scaled and comparative analysis of the understudied issue of guest worker programs reveals how different forms of exclusion, constructed at national and local scales, become deeply interwoven together to produce new labor market realities and reinforce national identities predicated on protecting the composition of the nation while actively promoting global economic competition.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholars' Bank (University of Oregon)French-language works237,207