Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mr. de la Cruz briefly discusses his family and childhood; in 1954, the family moved to a place just outside of Empalme, Sonora, México, where he learned about the bracero program; he could not find work in México at the time, and he decided to enlist in the program; to begin the process, he went to Empalme to pick cotton and get a card and his name on the list of available workers; from there, he had to wait to be called, which could happen anywhere from ten days to one month; he describes waiting in line to be fumigated and the other medical procedures he underwent; his first contract took him to Holtville, California, where he worked in the beet fields for forty-five days; he then went to Palo Verde, Arizona, for three months, to pick onions and potatoes and load trucks, which was especially difficult; later, he returned to the beet fields, but this time in Burbank, California; he explains how he used the short hoe, and he stayed there for three months; in addition, he went to Suisun [City] Arizona, for a short time, and picked tomatoes; his last contract took him to Salinas, California, for one month, to pick strawberries; while there, he worked between ten and twelve hours a day; he would send money home to his parents and wife as often as he could; when he first started working in California, he earned 80¢ per day, but he had to pay $3.00 per day for food; in Arizona, he earned $1.25 per hour, and the work was easier; he goes on to describe his life after the bracero program ended; he eventually emigrated to the United States with his wife.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".