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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mr. Loza talks about the hacienda where he grew up and how it gradually changed over time, eventually becoming a city; in addition, he explains what it was like living and working on an ejido; in 1942, government officials went to ranches in buses to enlist and take people for the bracero program; he describes the indecision many men faced with regard to joining the program, working on the hacienda, or taking over an ejido; although he never became a bracero, his brother, José, and two sons, Juan and Manuel, did; Cayetano discusses how his sons were able to get on the list of available workers and how they went through the contracting center in Irapuato, Guanajuato, México; he bought livestock for them whenever they sent money home; by the time Juan returned, he had learned to speak and read in English; he eventually went back to the United States, married, and settled there; when Manuel came back, he was more reserved; he had been treated badly while working as a bracero, and he never wanted to return to the United States; Cayetano also discusses how other men left with the program and returned after only a few months; they often came back with clothes and radios as gifts; a number of men he knew died while in the United States; he speculates they became ill and had no one to care for them; Cayetano knew of another man from the surrounding area who was burned while in his room at night; having lived in the same place, Cayetano was able to see a number of men coming and going throughout the duration of the bracero program.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it