Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comparative study uses data collected in 1990 and 1991 to examine the remittance behavior of Brazilians who had recently arrived in Canada and the United States. These data permit an examination of remittance activity among immigrants relatively soon after their arrival in a pair of host destinations. Prior to contrasting the remittance activity of these newly arrived immigrants, we first document the high degree of similarity between the two groups at their time of arrival; a point that becomes important when contrasting their divergent outcomes. Next, this study contributes to the research literature on micro-level remittance patterns and behaviors by focusing on three policy relevant dependant variables. More specifically, multivariate analyses are undertaken to examine those individual-level factors that best determine: (1) who remits, (2) how much they remit, and (3) when funds are remitted for productive purposes. Because the data analyzed were collected with the same instrument, results are then contrasted for the two destinations.One major finding to emerge from this cross-national study was that even immigrants who are extremely similar on all socio-economic measures at time of arrival may soon manifest divergent outcomes due to their distinctive country of destination experiences. Consequently, although some common predictors were found in both locales, there were far fewer than expected. For example, family obligation variables were usually significant in the predicted directions for the United States data, while this was almost never the case for the Canadian data. Furthermore, some variables often assumed to predict remittance behavior were insignificant in both locations. This study concludes by considering possible explanations for these results, as well as discussing the need for additional theoretical work and data collection in the area of immigrant remittance activity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".