Portuguese Migrations: Second-Generation Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portugal, although a relatively small country, presents a sizeable lens through which to examine diverse experiences with transnational migration and diasporic communities. This Special Issue of the IJPDS focuses specifically on the practices of Luso-descendants, transnational subjects with multiple po-sitionalities; some negotiating their integration outside of Portugal (e.g., in Canada, France, and Germany), and others involved in counter-diasporic movements of return to Portugal. All of the articles gathered here present compelling analyses of complicated processes of inclusion and exclusion across social and physical boundaries. Before exploring the thematic bond between these articles, however, we begin by contextualizing the geographic bond that unites them: Portugal’s territory and migration history. This history is shaped by outflows and inflows, the former representing an historical and continuous trend, and the latter being more recent. Immigration to Portugal only became a significant phenomenon1 after the Portuguese Revolution of 1974. Prior to that, foreign populations were a marginal phenomenon for the government and for public opinion. In 2012, official data suggest there were just over 417,000 documented migrants residing in Portugal, accounting for approximately 4 % of the total population (SEF, 2013). In the decades that followed the revolution and the downfall of the Salazar regime, immigration to Portugal came mainly from Portuguese-speaking countries, such as Brazil, and the former African colonies (Cape Verde, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe, Mozambique). However, over time, migratory fluxes expanded progressively and by the end of the 20th century,
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".