Introduction: Latin American Diasporas: Common Origins and Different Paths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This issue gathers contributions from Canada, Israel, and Spain regarding the integration of Americans in those countries. Most studies on migrants focus on population movements within or, particularly in the English-language scholarly literature, on their migration towards the United States. Not surprisingly, it is mostly in the latter context that the idea of a diaspora has drawn the attention of researchers, and that the emergence of a pan-ethnic identity in exile has been proposed and discussed. The term Latino --as it refers to a relatively well-defined population subset--is directly connected to the U.S. reality and it reflects historically rooted understandings of ethnicity and minority self-identification and categorization in that country. However, the often-overlooked notion that a diasporic construction can take place in other host societies is certainly worth exploring. Outside the United States, Americans have settled in many regions of the world, but they have created certain migration corridors that are particularly significant, in that they are establishing distinct realities--through an emerging sense of community and by means of shared experiences and aspirations. Americans in Canada, in Israel, and in Spain can claim a common origin, but their Latino-ness will probably take different shapes as they become part and parcel of each host society: being in French (in Quebec) or in Hebrew is different from being in English or in Spanish. Canada, Israel, and Spain are all countries of immigration, but their respective models of diversity-management, the volume and configuration of their immigrant intake, and their political and socioeconomic environment, not to mention the linguistic and cultural framework, create diverging patterns of integration and minority/majority relations. But if each receiving society will foster different ways of carrying and reinterpreting a heritage, can we actually consider this heritage as a common trait of all or most Americans, be they migrants or not? Indeed, includes at least twenty nation-states that, because of their colonial origins, reflect in their institutions and societal organization--albeit in many different ways--a worldview with roots in the Southern European tradition, that of the Greco-Roman world, the Italian Renaissance, the Counter-Reformation, and the Iberian absolutist social order. However, such shared past does not preclude a debate about which countries should be covered by the label Latin Some expansive definitions will encompass the whole hemisphere with the exception of Canada, the United States, and the dependencies and territories belonging to European countries (that is, the geopolitically-driven approach favored by CELAC, the Community of and Caribbean States created in 2011). Other more restrictive definitions will focus on language (Spanish or Portuguese) or on the Hispanic legacy, thus excluding Brazil from the cluster. Geography also is occasionally a factor: Mexico would be a North American country, thus outside the realm of a Latin America spreading over South and Central America. Is Haiti part of America? Even Cuba's place is ambiguous, as the Caribbean is usually seen as a distinct area. It goes without saying that the colonial experience in the Americas involved an extraordinary process of ethnic mixing, cultural amalgamation, and ideological construction, and that the indigenous populations contributed decisively to the process of nation-building, although from a highly subordinate position. But no characterization of America's historical foundations supposes the existence of a monolithically unified civic culture throughout the region or within each country, for that matter. In fact, many studies show the presence of both unique cultural orientations, and the existence of diverging values and attitudes between regions and between social groups. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".