Calidad de vida de trabajadoras inmigrantes latinoamericanas como cuidadoras en España
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Describir la calidad de vida percibida en trabajadoras latinoamericanas como cuidadoras en España y sus diferencias en relación a ciertas variables que les son comunes. Se utilizó el cuestionario SF-36 para la medición de la calidad de vida percibida en 517 mujeres de Baleares, Cataluña, País Vasco, Canarias y Madrid. Se estudiaron diversas variables relacionadas con su perfil sociodemográfico y proceso migratorio, usando la prueba t de Student, el test ANOVA y modelos de regresión lineal. Obtuvieron muy bajas puntuaciones en las dimensiones de rol físico y rol emocional. El trabajo como interna, la falta de contrato, las múltiples tareas, el estatus irregular y la edad más joven se relacionaron con una peor calidad de vida dentro del grupo. Las condiciones laborales y los factores ligados al proceso migratorio son determinantes para explicar la vulnerabilidad de estas mujeres. To describe perceived quality of life in Latin American caregivers working in Spain and how it varies in relation to certain variables shared by this group. We used the SF-36 to measure perceived quality of life in 517 women residing in five Spanish regions: the Balearic Islands, Catalonia, the Basque Country, the Canary Islands, and Madrid. Several variables related to the socio-demographic profile and migration process were studied using Student's t test, ANOVA and linear regression models. The participants scored very low on the dimensions of physical and emotional roles. The factors associated with lower quality of life scores within the group were working as a live-in caregiver, lack of contract, multitasking, irregular status, and younger age. The vulnerability of these women can be explained by poor working conditions and other factors related to the migratory process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".