Health of China's rural-urban migrants and their families: a review of literature from 2000 to 2012
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic transformation in China at the beginning of the twenty-first century has led to rapid urbanization and accelerated rural-urban migration. As a result, the concerns about public health problems triggered by increasing internal population mobility have been more widely studied in recent years. SOURCES OF DATA: Published data in Chinese and English on health of migrants and their families in mainland China from 2000 to 2012. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: The shifting patterns of disease distribution due to rural-urban migration, health equity and health reform strategies that cater for this specific yet substantial subpopulation are outstanding concerns. Infectious diseases, mental health, occupational health and women's health are emerging public health priorities related to migration. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The high mobility and large numbers of Chinese rural-urban migrants pose challenges to research methods and the reliability of evidence gained. GROWING POINTS: While the theme of working migrants is common in the literature, there have also been some studies of health of those left behind but who often remain unregistered. Migration within China is not a single entity and understanding the dynamics of new and emerging societies will need further study. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Social, economic, emotional, environmental and behavioural risk factors that impact on health of migrants and their families call for more attention from health policy-makers and researchers in contemporary China.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it