Bibliographic record
Abstract
Migration and democracy contributes to the scholarship on the global significance of remittances, illustrating their impact on democratization in the global South. As the authors state: ‘This book aims to reshape the debate about migration by demonstrating how emigration fosters democracy in the global South’ (p. 6). To support this claim, Abel Escribà-Folch, Covadonga Meseguer and Joseph Wright present largely quantitative cross-national data on two phenomena. First, they look at how remittances increase the capacity of and incentives for citizens to express themselves through protest and to fund opposition groups. Second, they examine how remittances undermine autocrats’ ability to purchase electoral support through vote-buying. The authors argue that remittances bolster the political opposition's resources and decrease the citizens’ dependency on the government. Ultimately, these two mechanisms undermine dictatorship. The authors examine the cases of Senegal and Cambodia to show that remittances strengthened opposition parties and introduced political instability in the two autocratic countries. Thus, they conclude that ‘remittances have a positive and significant effect on the likelihood of democratization’ (p. 25).
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".