Revenir chez soi ou partir ailleurs ? Dynamiques familiales, politiques migratoires et trajectoires de migration des migrants africains vivant en Belgique et au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Migration plans, which are constantly evolving, reflect future mobility intentions and are a valuable indicator of remigration. Initially focused on non-migrants, scientific interest is now turning to individuals who have already migrated, whether they wish to return to their country of origin or settle in another. Nevertheless, to date, the political dimension remains little studied from an empirical point of view. This research focuses on the migration projects and actual re-migration of African migrants by cross-referencing individual experiences, family dynamics, and migration policies in Belgium. It also examines the professional integration of re-migrants in Canada. Combining quantitative and qualitative data, and using various analytical methods, the study reveals that in Belgium, living with a family reduces the likelihood of re-migration, while periods of irregular legal status increase it. Asylum procedures tend to immobilize migrants, while professional downgrading pushes some of them to leave. Integration policies tend to encourage re-emigration, while incentives to return tend to discourage it. In Canada, despite an apparent improvement in social status, many migrants are considering professional retraining, while others are experiencing professional downgrading. Some consider Canada a final destination, while others envisage a transnational life between Canada and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The thesis highlights the key role of family structure and administrative stability, underlines the ambivalent effects of migration policies, and recommends a tricontextual approach to grasp the complexity of migration trajectories better.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".