MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097460649

Gender, Dowry and the Migration System l 357 Gender, Dowry and the Migration System of Indian Information Technology Professionals

2016· article· en· W7097460649 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowryCitizenshipImmigrationInformation technologyWork (physics)InstitutionPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current literature on gender and migration focuses largely on womens experi-ences as migrants or, alternatively, on their experiences as those left behind. This article, on the contrary, seeks to demonstrate how gender is central in producing a migration system itself. Based on in-depth fieldwork in Sydney (Australia) and Andhra Pradesh (India) on the migration system of Indian information technology (IT) professionals from 2000 to 2001, the article suggests that the gender relations prevalent in Andhra Pradesh, particularly the institution of dowry, have been critical in producing a specially cheap and flexible labour force, and in supporting it in the volatile global economy. In turn, the emergence of a group of mobile IT professionals contributes to the increase of dowry, with disturbing consequences for those underprivileged and seemingly unconcerned with the IT industry. The spectacular growth of the information technology (IT) indus-try and the hyper-mobility of IT professionals are among the most significant social developments in India since its economic liber-alisation in the beginning of the 1990s. In 2002, 64,980 Indians were granted H-1B visas, the special work permit of the United States for highly skilled temporary migrants, far exceeding the second and third largest groups (China with 18,841 and Canada with 11,760) (US Citizenship and Immigration Services 2003: 153). Even more strikingly, 73 per cent of the Indian H-1B visa holders were computer professionals and 63 per cent of all the computer-related H-1B visas

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMigration and Labor Dynamics→French-language works237,207→