Aproximación social de la migración en el Estrecho de Gibraltar con perspectiva de género
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article will address a series of questions related to different controversial notions, as well as reflective questions that each person will be able to contrast with the objective data presented in this article. Does the social structure legitimize inequalities? Is individualism the consequence of different periods of development? Can a comparison be made between the societies of Spain and Morocco and their social protection systems? Are there more cases of human trafficking and forced labor in Andalusia, with the possible influence of the proximity of borders? Throughout this text, the global and specific inequality of the Strait of Gibraltar area, migratory effects and other issues will be analyzed: The issue of psychological, physical and sexual violence towards women is addressed, and the affectation of women, girls and boys as a result of the funding of Migratory Policies of Europe and Spain to third countries such as Morocco and Algeria is raised. We will focus on migrant women who are affected by different inequalities, poverty, gender, ethnicity, religion, not speaking the language, etc., the socalled intersectionality. In this sense, we will observe data and raise awareness through testimonies of the effects of the huge inequality. Keywords: Migration, Inequality, Gender, Welfare States, Borders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".