The impact of diasporas on the regulation of migration processes: foreign experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of the research is a systemic analysis of the role of diaspora communities as active subjects in the formation and implementation of migration policy in transnational spaces. The focus is on institutional mechanisms, network resources, and strategies of influence that diasporas exert on migration regulation in various political and legal contexts. The comparative analysis involves countries with established immigration regimes (the USA, Canada), a supranational formation (the European Union), and countries of migration origin (China, India), exploring forms of diaspora participation—from political lobbying and expert support to the implementation of integration and development programs. Special attention is given to analyzing the bidirectional nature of diaspora influence: on one hand, as actors impacting the migration agenda of host countries, and on the other hand, as strategic partners of countries of origin in matters of national development and soft power. The study is based on an interdisciplinary theoretical and analytical approach that integrates concepts from migration sociology, transnational studies, and social capital theory. The primary method employed is comparative qualitative analysis of cases selected based on maximum contrast and theoretical representativeness. The analysis relies on secondary data, including academic publications, official documents, and international migration reports. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the comprehensive analysis and systematization of the role of diasporas as independent actors in migration governance through the lens of concepts such as transnational social fields, diaspora governance, and social capital. The work consistently argues for a shift in understanding diasporas as full-fledged political subjects possessing their own agency and capable of actively influencing the migration policies of both host and origin countries. The comparative analysis of different models of interaction between states and diasporas has revealed a universal trend toward recognizing diasporas as strategic partners in migration regulation. The key conclusion of the study is that contemporary migration governance is becoming increasingly multi-actor and transnational in nature, where diasporas perform critically important functions in reducing the transactional costs of migration, lobbying for the interests of migrants, shaping the public agenda, and mediating between various levels of government. Their resources in the form of social capital, network structures, and transnational ties become a significant factor in shaping migration policy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".