Im/migration: Family Strategies and Access to Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives : The aim of this issue of the journal is to study the way in which "making a family" influences access to rights and the integration of migrant families in Europe (France, Germany), North America (Quebec) and Djibouti, from Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Mozambique or Brazil. Similarly, and reciprocally, he is interested in the impact of law on family experiences in a migratory context. Methodology : The ethnographic observation approach, through the cross-referenced collection of life stories and the reconstruction of the life contexts of these migrants (while respecting their words and their anonymity) makes it possible to discover, sometimes in a counter-intuitive way, the effects of the policies on their lives. Results : It often happens that within the same migrant family the legal status of its members is different, and therefore their rights to be regularised or not. As a result, these families - and more broadly, entire groups of migrants - have to carry out important work in terms of information for access to residence rights, work, access to schooling for their children, health, nationality, etc. Nothing is guaranteed a priori. Conclusion : We can imagine how much migration will continue in the face of climate change and political unrest throughout history. It is likely that a policy evaluation approach, or lack thereof, by those affected, will be increasingly necessary in the future. Contribution : This thematic issue of the journal Enfances Familles Générations highlights, from a historical and comparative approach, the impact of the legitimacy of being part of the national community to which these men and women have migrated (Destremau, 2022).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".