Elspeth Guild, Sandra Mantu (eds.), Constructing and Imagining Labour Migration. Perspectives of Control from Five Continents, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham, 2010, 330 p
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book examines the different migration control mechanisms used by countries from five continents as well as the interactions that occur between them. The current immigration control mechanisms are analyzed as a completely independent issue, taking into account multiple perspectives not yet perceived by migration theorists and specialists in internal migration policies. The authors analyze the impact of specific mechanisms of regulation and control on the regional dynamics of migration processes and the practical problems facing immigrants. The book can be a valuable resource for those wishing to understand the current trends of labor migration (both in terms of political decisions as well as from the perspective of individual immigration patterns). Showing the diverse nature of national and regional (eg EU countries) regimes of border control also helps to understand the problems facing international institutions in the coordination and management of migratory flows. The book discusses mechanisms of labour migration control in the Republic of South Africa, Brazil, Malaysia, the countries of East Asia, Australia, Canada, Japan, European Union countries and 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".