Migration into the Czech Republic: The 90's vs. present from the view of Canadian migrants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This bachelor thesis revolves around the issue of migration into the Czech Republic from the view of Canadian citizens. It focuses on two time periods, the 90's and the present which was for this study defined as the year 2016 till 2020. The aim of this thesis is to compare migration to the Czech Republic in the 90's and in the present with the concentration on certain differences of the migration process into the Czech Republic. This thesis is a comparison case study, which uses semi structured interviews, secondary data and legal documents for the analysis of individual migration cases into the Czech Republic in the given periods. The cases of the Canadian citizens migration are explained by the dual labor market theory and relative deprivation theory. This thesis shows the differences within the main problems that are connected to migration, conditions of entry into the Czech Republic and within the integration of immigrants into the Czech labor market. The contribution of this thesis is also the description of the current Czech migration policy which is based on the previous periodization from the Barša couple. The results of this thesis advert to liberality of the migration policy in the 90's and to the emphasis on migrant regulation in the current Czech 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".