MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395045489 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2024.2338768

Migration Causes and Challenges at the European Border in North Africa: A Practitioner-Based Grounded Theory

2024· article· en· W4395045489 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fernando García‐Quero, Pablo Sabucedo, Marina García Carmona, Benen Nadelek Whitworth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020
KeywordsGrounded theoryPolitical scienceSociologyQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This investigation took place in Melilla, a European city in North Africa, and in the neighboring cities of Granada and Malaga, on the southern Mediterranean coast of Spain. As well as exploring an under-researched geographical area, the article also focuses on an under-researched group in the field of migration: first-line practitioners. Grounded theory research was conducted to develop a working model of practitioners’ perspectives surrounding causes of migration, and related challenges, at (and through) the European Union-Moroccan border. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were used to gather qualitative data from 19 first-line practitioners. Their perspectives suggested a complex set of causes underlying migration at an economic, individual, community, national, and geopolitical level. They also identified eight central risks, and challenges, for the migrant population during their journey to (and process of establishing their lives in) Europe. To reduce such risks, practitioners emphasized the need for safe migratory routes, quick institutional responses in the presence of unexpected phenomena (such as COVID-19), promoting and educating for empathy, and the development of more interregional solidarity on a national, European and international level. The paper concludes reflecting on the importance of these proposed responses in “out-of-place” European territories such as the city of Melilla.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207