Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolCanada tiene una experiencia de gestion de la inmigracion mas que centenaria. Al mismo tiempo, esa politica convive con el rasgo diferencial de ese pais, el mosaico canadiense, que se traduce en la politica oficial de multiculturalidad. Su politica de inmigracion ha experimentado una evolucion que, incluso a pesar de una posicion mas restrictiva en la ultima etapa, se ha caracterizado por su apertura y por un planteamiento inclusivo, es decir, concebir los flujos migratorios destinados a Canada no en terminos del modelo Gastarbeiter, el unico presente en las politicas europeas (y desde luego en la espanola) sino de arraigo, y por ello con el destino final de convertirse en ciudadanos. Los mecanismos de esta gestion (desde las oficinas de inmigracion en las legaciones diplomaticas en el exterior, hasta el comite parlamentario permanente) y su modelo de gestion de la multiculturalidad lo convierten en un ejemplo a estudiar, especialmente en el caso espanol. EnglishCanada has an experience on immigration management more than centennial. At the same time, that policy lives together with that country differential feature, the `Canadian mosaic', which is translated into the official policy of multiculturality. Its immigration policy has suffered an evolution that, even in spite of a more restrictive position in the last stage, has been characterized by its opening and by an inclusive point of view, that is to say, to conceive the migratory flows destined to Canada not in terms of the Gastarbeiter pattern, the only present in European politics (and naturally in the Spanish one) but of real estate, and for that with the final destination of becoming citizens. The mechanisms of this management (from the immigration offices in abroad diplomatic legations, to the permanent parliamentary committee) and its management model of the multiculturality transforms it into an example to study, especially in the Spanish case.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.002 |
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".