MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409216380 · doi:10.15359/98-1.2

Prácticas de acogida e integración de migrantes en Costa Rica y República Dominicana

2025· article· en· W4409216380 on OpenAlex
Matías Luciano Fouillioux Bambach, Aline Bravo

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRelaciones Internacionales · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaAgencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this contribution is to identify and analyze the policies, practices of integration and protection of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in vulnerable situations in Central America and the Caribbean, specifically through two case studies: Costa Rica and Dominican Republic; based on concepts such as sanctuary cities, hospitality, and solidarity, associated with the sanctuary movement that originated in the United States in the 1980s. The results show, on the one hand, a low rate of approval and processing of asylum applications, so that the practices of reception and integration of the population subject to study acquire greater relevance. However, there is a clear difference in the implementation of the concept with respect to the global north, due to the complexity of the migratory categories in the region and because they do not represent an opposition or resistance to local policies because they are intergovernmental agreements.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.336 · 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