Secondary migration of immigrants to Canada: an analysis of LSIC wave 1 data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigrant settlement patterns are inherently more dynamic and diverse than those observed at the time of the census. In particular, it is likely that the intended settlement pattern (the destination stated to immigration officials at the time of entry) differs from the initial settlement pattern (the actual settlement location). At best, previous research has relied upon census data to illuminate these patterns, but only allowing a rough estimate of the dynamics of the system. As a result, spatial adjustments to the settlement process are only partially understood, with limited distinctions between recent and earlier arrivals, those who settled after a series of moves, or those that did not move at all after arrival. Using the recently released Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada (LSIC), this article examines differences in the evolution of the settlement pattern of immigrants in their first 6 months in Canada, potentially illuminating differences between the intended and initial settlement patterns. The advantage of this file is its longitudinal nature, allowing settlement location of the same individuals to be traced over time. Results suggest that while mobility is high among the newest arrivals, the intended and initial destinations are largely equivalent .
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".