Theoretical rhetoric about migration networks: A case of a journey of Bangladeshi workers to Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper analyses the routes that Bangladeshi migrant workers take to get to Malaysia. This paper also tests the basic tenets and the applicability of networks theory with the empirical reality on the routes. In order to test it, the route negotiated by Bangladeshi migrant workers from Bangladesh to Malaysia is considered. Network theory proposes that migration, in terms of reduction of costs and mitigation of risks, is facilitated by networks. Data demonstrate that majority of the respondents had incurred exorbitant costs on their migration. To get to their destination, half of the respondents took around a month, a quarter of them took between one and two months, while a person traveling in a normal way could make the same air journey safely in three hours. En route they suffered many other severe adversities: such as starvation, maltreatment, and were forced to pass through deep jungles. Thus, this study directly challenges the theory by illustrating that despite their access to networks, their migration was marked by a lengthy, painful, and hazardous journey.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".