Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes findings from three successive empirical studies that examine the determinants of participation in transnational organizations by Latin immigrants in the United States, the character of the membership and activities of these organizations, and their bearing on the political incorporation of their respective communities. Results from these studies reveal that older, better-educated, and higher-status migrants are most likely to participate in transnational organizations linking them to their home countries. So are those with longer periods of US residence. Since migrants with these characteristics are precisely those with greater chances for US citizenship acquisition and participation in American politics, findings suggest that transnational activism and immigrant political integration are not at odds. Quantitative analyses of the determinants of political contact and political activism of immigrant organizations in the US indicate, unsurprisingly, that wealthier groups and those with a membership formed by better-educated and longer residents are most likely to be politically active. The societies left behind make a difference in the propensity toward political activism by different nationalities. Despite such differences, the overall trend is for immigrant transnational activism, individual and collective, not to retard political incorporation in the United States. Both processes occur simultaneously and appear, under certain circumstances, to reinforce each other. This conclusion contradicts both conventional assimilation theory and nativistic rhetoric. Contrary to assimilation expectations, older and better-educated immigrants rather than recent arrivals are those most likely to initiate and maintain ties with their home countries. Contrary to nativistic rhetoric, there is no zero-sum relationship between such activities and successful political incorporation to the United States.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".