MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590196430

Employment-Related Mobility and the Health of Workers, Families, and Communities: The Canadian Context

2011· article· en· W1590196430 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julia Temple Newhook, Barbara Neis, Lois Jackson, Sharon R. Roseman, Paula Romanow, Chrissy D. Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mobilityContext (archaeology)CitizenshipEmbodied cognitionEthnic groupInequalitySociologyIdeologyGender studiesGeographic mobilitySocial classPolitical scienceGeographySocial sciencePoliticsPopulationDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new body of literature – mobility studies – argues that mobility is a ubiquitous, normal, ongoing, and patterned aspect of all human societies.1 It treats mobility as socially produced, embodied, and mediated by class, gender, and ethnicity.2 This research suggests that mobility is underpinned by ideological meanings and material realities including issues related to social citizenship, as well as inequalities in access to mobility, in conditions of mobility, and in its consequences, all of which vary across situations, social classes, and genders.3 Employment-related mobility is a pervasive feature of many occupations. In this research note, we are particularly interested in employment-related mobility in the Canadian context. We define employment-related mobility as situations where workers regularly and repeatedly cross municipal,

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0280.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations50
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)Same topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207