MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1090376499 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.35.2.229

Migration as a Method of Coping with Turbulence Among Palestinians

2004· article· en· W1090376499 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Louise Cainkar, Ali Abunimah, Lamia Raei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomelandContext (archaeology)PoliticsRefugeeForced migrationPolitical scienceSociologyDevelopment economicsEconomic growthDemographic economicsGeographyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migration is one way individuals and families cope with economic uncertainty and political turbulence. Palestinians have used migration as a means to find economic stability and opportunities for their children since 1948, due to continuous strife in and displacement from their homeland. Built on earlier studies, this article discusses the findings of in-depth-interviews and focus groups with low-income Palestinians from Amman, Jordan now living in Chicago concerning their quality of life and the indicators they use to assess it. The authors found that these Palestinians see life in the United States as much richer in economic and educational opportunities than Jordan, but Jordan is viewed as being safer and providing stronger social supports. Consequently, they see their migration as circular, with movement plans timed to maximizing the best features of each country. Rather than seeking to settle permanently in the United States, they speak about living transnationally — moving between the two countries at different stages in their own and their children’s life cycles. Since September llth, 2001 however, the social and policy context in the United States has changed, especially for Arabs and Muslims. After describing some of these changes, the authors speculate that they may limit and change the character of Palestinian migration from Jordan, making a transnational lifestyle more risky and life in the US less tolerable. They find preliminary support for this idea in a survey of 33 residents of Amman and in an examination of data from the US visa lottery.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207