Bibliographic record
Abstract
Millions of migrants abroad today maintain their social and familial obligations to their country of origin through remittances. Managed cleverly and in joint community ventures, these ties are increasingly helping to draw the home economies into the global economy, with migrants becoming active agents of the globalization of their home countries. Immigrants are joining forces with one another to support practical social projects back home through small grassroots organizations, known as hometown associations (HTAs). Hometown associations are organizations of immigrants that raise funds to better their places of origin. HTAs are growing in importance in Latin America and the Caribbean because of the support to their communities. The relationship between development and migration is complex, as it reflects a combination of initiatives and motivations: cultural, economic, political and social (Orozco 2004a). Diaspora communities create these groups to strengthen links with their communities of origin and to fund raise in support of local community development projects. While primarily philanthropic in nature, HTA work sometimes overlaps with economic development and represents an important link between countries of origin and emigrants. HTAs address the need for economic aid in their home countries, seek to retain cultural ties and aim to improve home country communities. In addition to $45 billion in annual family remittances in 2004, immigrants have also become an interesting crucible for development through collective donations for local projects (Orozco 2002). In the United States, there are thousands of Latin American and Caribbean HTAs. For example, according to the Mexican Consulates, there exist over seven hundred registered Mexican clubs (although government officials in Mexico and Latino community leaders estimate a much higher and increasing number). Figure 1 shows the increase in Mexican HTAs based in Chicago alone over the past six years. However, the presence of HTAs is not restricted to Mexico. Most Latin American immigrants are organized in HTAs around the purpose of helping their communities. Salvadoran HTAs, for example, have existed in greater numbers since the '90s. Salvadorans in the Washington, D.C., area, who are from Eastern El Salvador, are organized in more than twenty groups that raise money to provide assistance in areas like San Miguel Province. Comunidad Unida de Chinameca, created in 1991, is a typical Salvadoran HTA. This HTA began activities in the city of Chinameca by constructing the school's water tower, as well as twelve restrooms. From there, they went on to construct a laundry facility, a recreational park for the town, as well as painting and putting a roof on the local church. Comunidad gathers around $30,000 annually, raised mostly through fund-raising events. After El Salvador's earthquake in 2001, Comunidad received donations of construction material from the French embassy to build a wall for the Red Cross building in the town, and the town participated by donating labor (Orozco 2004c). Guyanese HTAs focus on projects similar to those undertaken by Central American and Mexican migrants. These associations are based in Canada and the United States--New York in particular--and have a longstanding organizational base. Guyana Watch, founded in 1992 and based in Queens, N.Y., conducts an annual medical outreach clinic in Guyana. They organize a group of twenty to twenty-five doctors and nurses to travel to three cities in Guyana (Essequibo, Demerara and Berbice) and work at a clinic for one day, attending between twenty-five hundred and three thousand people (Orozco 2004b). HTAs vary in level of organizational formality, but most have governing boards of ten or fewer elected members that include a president, secretary, treasurer and auditors. This core membership generally selects projects and prioritizes hometown needs to be supported. …
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".