MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041666040 · doi:10.1068/a39187

Destination Choice of the 1995–2000 Immigrants to Japan: Salient Features and Multivariate Explanation

2007· article· en· W2041666040 on OpenAlexaff
Kao‐Lee Liaw, Yoshitaka Ishikawa

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and Space · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationSalientMultivariate statisticsMultivariate analysisDemographic economicsEthnic groupMarital statusEconomicsDemographyGeographySociologyPopulationStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to identify the salient features of the destination choices made by new immigrants who entered Japan in the 1995–2000 period, and to provide a multivariate explanation for their choice behaviors. The salient features can be summarized as follows; first, destination-choice patterns differed markedly by ethnicity; second, the higher the educational qualification of the immigrants, the greater the attraction of the Tokyo prefecture and the less dispersed the destination-choice pattern; and third, among female immigrants, those with the household status of daughter in law were more prone to go to the Tohoku region, where the maintenance of the traditional stem-family system was a serious concern. Our multivariate analysis has revealed that the destination choices made by the new immigrants were indeed subject to the selective effects of labor-market conditions, the distributions of coethnics, and the spatial patterns of marital opportunities in theoretically meaningful ways, and that labor-market conditions were most important, whereas marital opportunities were least important.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and SpaceSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207