Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Bangladeshi community in Rome has grown considerably in recent years, due chiefly to the increasing difficulty in reaching Germany and the UK. To arrive in Italy Bangladeshi citizens have to cross the Mediterranean, with all the inherent risks and difficulties, and pay huge sums of money to human traffickers. Once they are settled in Italy, and have obtained a residence permit or even Italian citizenship, Bangladeshi men return home for a period of time to find a wife, before returning to Italy and setting up a family. The intended final destination of this human mobility is however London, which hosts the biggest Bangladeshi community, with mosques for their children to study religion and schools for them to study in English. Unmarried men in Rome live together in flats in the Esquilino quarter, those with wives and children live in the Tor Pignattara district. Despite the colourful clothes worn by Bangladeshi women, this community is practically invisible, since it cannot be measured using the normal instruments of official statistics. This essay uses the instruments of quantitative and qualitative analysis to contribute towards increasing our level of knowledge about the actual dimension, customs, needs and expectations of the Bangladeshi Community in Rome.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".