Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si todos los gobiernos de los países desarrollados tratan de controlar los flujos migratorios, lo que implica un profundo conocimiento, una anticipación de las necesidades y el establecimiento de criterios objetivos, algunos países han elaborado políticas originales, tanto en Europa como en América del norte. El propósito del presente artículo es precisamente presentar las políticas elaboradas y posteriormente puestas en marcha por: 1) Canadá, que prefiere elegir individualmente a los inmigrantes en función de sus competencias y de su capacidad de integración en la sociedad de acogida a través de un sistema por puntos, 2) ciertos países mediterráneos como España e Italia, que, tras aplicar una política de contingentes anuales según las necesidades económicas de cada sector y región, han procedido a regularizaciones masivas de inmigrantes en los últimos años, y 3) Suiza, que ha tratado de contener la inmigración extranjera desde los años 1970 gracias a una política de cuotas para mantener un equilibro entre las poblaciones helvética e inmigrante.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".