Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract:Using diverse conceptualizations of social capital, this paper will analyse qualitative data obtained from interviews with 49 Ar-gentine migrants to Spain and returnees. Unlike other Latin American migrants to Spain, this group of Argentines approached the migratory experience as a 'nuclear fami-ly'. In general, respondents tended to devel-op diversified networks, avoiding the con-straints experienced by other migrants. I argue that a number of factors including migratory status, certain 'feelings of enti-tlement', cultural affinity and physical fea-tures are all important as far as the inter-viewees' positioning within the 'field' of migrants is concerned. In general, most in-terviewees also pointed out that individuals tend to trust more in institutions and the community as a whole in Spain than in Ar-gentina. Even so, data also suggested that solidarity and friendship ties were stronger in Argentina than in Spain.Resumen: El peso de los activos sociales: ¿qué es lo diferente entre los/as argentinos/as en España? El peso de los activos sociales: ¿qué es lo diferente entre los/as argentinos/as en España?Utilizando diversas conceptualizaciones de capital social, este artículo analiza los datos obtenidos a través de 49 entrevistas con migrantes argentinos a España y retornados. A diferencia de otros grupos de migrantes latinoamericanos a España, los argentinos que formaron parte de este estudio empren-dieron la empresa migratoria como una ex-periencia de la 'familia nuclear'. En general, los entrevistados tendieron a desarrollar redes diversificadas, evitando las dificulta-des experimentadas por otros migrantes. Considero que una serie de factores, inclu-yendo el estatus migratorio, 'sentirse con derecho', la afinidad cultural y las caracte-rísticas físicas son muy importantes en cuan-to al posicionamiento de los entrevistados en el ámbito de los migrantes. En general, la mayoría de los entrevistados también señaló que los individuos tienden a confiar más en las instituciones y la comunidad en su con-junto en España que en la Argentina. Aun así, los datos también sugieren que los lazos de solidaridad y la amistad son más fuertes en la Argentina que en España.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".