Campos agrícolas, campos de poder: el Estado mexicano, los granjeros canadienses y los trabajadores temporales mexicanos
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El artículo aborda el análisis del Programa de Trabajadores Agrícolas Temporales entreMéxico y Canadá a través de los conceptos “campos sociales” y “campos de poder” paraentender la aparente contradicción entre la satisfacción abiertamente expresada por losparticipantes en el programa y el alto grado de control, trabajo intensivo y bajos salariosque muchos trabajadores padecen en Canadá. Solamente cuando observamos la maneracomo los migrantes “tejen” diferentes campos de poder –el campo de relaciones sociales enCanadá y el campo local formado por las relaciones en la comunidad en que viven–podemos entender que al ir a trabajar a Canadá, lo que implica un rompimiento de loslazos con sus familias y comunidades, los trabajadores migrantes pueden cumplir con lasexpectativas morales y culturales de sus localidades.ABSTRACTThis essay analyses the Temporary FarmWorkers Program between Mexico and Canadausing the terms “social fields” and “power spaces” to understand the apparent contradictionbetween the satisfaction expressed by the participants in the program and high levels ofcontrol, intensive work and low wages that the workers suffer in Canada. Only when weobserve the ways the migrants “weave” the different power spaces—in Canada’s socialrelations space and the space shaped by the relations in the community they live—we canunderstand that to be working in Canada, that means to break their family and communitybonds, the workers can comply with the local moral and cultural expectations
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it