Introduction: Latin American Diasporas: Common Origins and Different Paths
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This issue gathers contributions from Canada, Israel, and Spain regarding the integration of Americans in those countries. Most studies on migrants focus on population movements within or, particularly in the English-language scholarly literature, on their migration towards the United States. Not surprisingly, it is mostly in the latter context that the idea of a diaspora has drawn the attention of researchers, and that the emergence of a pan-ethnic identity in exile has been proposed and discussed. The term Latino --as it refers to a relatively well-defined population subset--is directly connected to the U.S. reality and it reflects historically rooted understandings of ethnicity and minority self-identification and categorization in that country. However, the often-overlooked notion that a diasporic construction can take place in other host societies is certainly worth exploring. Outside the United States, Americans have settled in many regions of the world, but they have created certain migration corridors that are particularly significant, in that they are establishing distinct realities--through an emerging sense of community and by means of shared experiences and aspirations. Americans in Canada, in Israel, and in Spain can claim a common origin, but their Latino-ness will probably take different shapes as they become part and parcel of each host society: being in French (in Quebec) or in Hebrew is different from being in English or in Spanish. Canada, Israel, and Spain are all countries of immigration, but their respective models of diversity-management, the volume and configuration of their immigrant intake, and their political and socioeconomic environment, not to mention the linguistic and cultural framework, create diverging patterns of integration and minority/majority relations. But if each receiving society will foster different ways of carrying and reinterpreting a heritage, can we actually consider this heritage as a common trait of all or most Americans, be they migrants or not? Indeed, includes at least twenty nation-states that, because of their colonial origins, reflect in their institutions and societal organization--albeit in many different ways--a worldview with roots in the Southern European tradition, that of the Greco-Roman world, the Italian Renaissance, the Counter-Reformation, and the Iberian absolutist social order. However, such shared past does not preclude a debate about which countries should be covered by the label Latin Some expansive definitions will encompass the whole hemisphere with the exception of Canada, the United States, and the dependencies and territories belonging to European countries (that is, the geopolitically-driven approach favored by CELAC, the Community of and Caribbean States created in 2011). Other more restrictive definitions will focus on language (Spanish or Portuguese) or on the Hispanic legacy, thus excluding Brazil from the cluster. Geography also is occasionally a factor: Mexico would be a North American country, thus outside the realm of a Latin America spreading over South and Central America. Is Haiti part of America? Even Cuba's place is ambiguous, as the Caribbean is usually seen as a distinct area. It goes without saying that the colonial experience in the Americas involved an extraordinary process of ethnic mixing, cultural amalgamation, and ideological construction, and that the indigenous populations contributed decisively to the process of nation-building, although from a highly subordinate position. But no characterization of America's historical foundations supposes the existence of a monolithically unified civic culture throughout the region or within each country, for that matter. In fact, many studies show the presence of both unique cultural orientations, and the existence of diverging values and attitudes between regions and between social groups. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».