MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W651945808 · doi:10.5860/choice.41-5371

Anthropology and migration: essays on transnationalism, ethnicity, and identity

2004· article· en· W651945808 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueChoice Reviews Online · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Racism, and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransnationalismEthnic groupAnthropologyIdentity (music)SociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceArtAestheticsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chapter 1 Introduction: Anthropology, Migration, and the Portuguese Diaspora Part 2 PART I. Situating the Anthropological Perspective: Macro, Meso, and Micro Approaches to the Study of Migration Chapter 3 1. The Emigrant, the Nation, and the State in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Portugal: An Anthropological Perspective Chapter 4 2. Migration Stories: Agency and the Individual in the Study of Immigration Part 5 PART II: Return Migration, Transmigrants, and Transnationalism Chapter 6 3. Emigrar para Voltar: A Portuguese Ideology of Return Migration Chapter 7 4. Emigration, the Church, and the Religious Festival in Northern Portugal Part 8 PART III: Cities, Immigrant Communities, and Ethnic Identity Chapter 9 5. Is the Ethnic Community Inevitable?: A Comparison of the Settlement Patterns of Portuguese Immigrants in Toronto and Paris Chapter 10 6. Ethnicity and Entrepreneurs: Portuguese Immigrants in a Canadian City Part 11 PART IV: Gender and Migration Chapter 12 7. Emigration and Household Structure in a Portuguese Parish, 1850-1920 Chapter 13 8. Women are Migrants, Too: A Portuguese Perspective Chapter 14 9. Conclusion: Toward a Comparative Understanding of Migration Chapter 15 References

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations244
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChoice Reviews OnlineSame topicMigration, Racism, and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207