MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079261966 · doi:10.1177/0898264310374507

Residential Relocation of Amenity Migrants to Florida: “Unpacking” Post-amenity Moves

2010· article· en· W2079261966 on OpenAlexaff
Loren D. Lovegreen, Eva Kahana, Boaz Kahana

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsAmenityTypologyRelocationContext (archaeology)Dependency (UML)UnpackingGeographySociologyDemographic economicsBusinessEconomicsEngineeringComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to unpack characteristics of interstate and intrastate moves undertaken by elderly amenity migrants. The authors examined these moves in the context of Litwak and Longino's life-course typology of migration. METHOD: In an 11-year longitudinal study, the authors examined the first move made by respondents out of a large Florida retirement community where no services were offered. Data from premove and postmove in-person interviews were used. RESULTS: This article found five distinct post-amenity move types, reflecting different degrees of dependency: (a) serial amenity moves, (b) positioning moves, (c) informal assistance moves, (d) formal assistance moves, and (e) dependency moves. DISCUSSION: Findings of this study not only support Litwak and Longino's migration typology but also elaborate and extend it. Only some older adults (20.4%) make counterstream assistance moves. Additional move types reflect new options for late-life migration to enhance person- environment fit.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations42
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and HealthSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207