Perceptions of migrant domestic workers in rural Southern Europe: Insights from Italy and Spain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined perceptions and sentiments toward female migrant domestic workers providing elderly care in two “predominantly rural” Southern European provinces: Potenza in Italy and Teruel in Spain. We analyzed field observations, interviews, and conversations collected mainly in small towns and villages. Our goal was to better understand how migrant domestic workers were perceived across different societal levels in their rural communities, the factors that shaped those views, and whether some of those perspectives were specific to these rural areas. Our findings revealed a high level of awareness among local residents about these workers, although this awareness did not necessarily imply friendship or inclusion in local social circles. Perceptions of migrant domestic workers as a group typically ranged from neutral to favorable, with local residents often valuing their contributions. However, skepticism and problematic views were also identified. Overall, increased contact and familiarity tended to reduce prejudice over time. We also discussed the critical issue of “trust” among care recipients and their family members, as well as the “contextual empathy” that residents often showed toward these workers—empathy that typically factored in local challenges.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".