Migration data collection and management in a changing Latin American landscape
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While many Latin American countries have a tradition of receiving migrants, including the countries selected as case studies, there are no institutionalized mechanisms for the integration and settlement of migrants. The objective of this article is to explore how to improve migration data collection and management in a region that does not have many migration integration policies in place. I assess the state of migration data collection and management in three case studies: the city of Cucuta in Colombia, the North Huetar Region in Costa Rica, and the city of Monterrey in Mexico. The three countries publish data exclusively at the national level, rather than the local or municipal. Despite all case studies having a variety of administrative data, mainly in the form of entries and exits by nationality, these data are not enough to properly identify the sociodemographic characteristics of migrant populations in a country, and much less in specific cities. I make recommendations divided into three main themes to improve migration data in Latin America.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it