MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Marriage Migration and Inequality in India, 1983–2008

2015· article· en· W2164872487 on OpenAlexaff
Smriti Rao, Kade Finnoff

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulation and Development Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsAssumption University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInequalityCasteSocioeconomic statusDemographic economicsDeveloping countryGeographyDevelopment economicsSociologyEconomicsDemographyPopulationPolitical scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using National Sample Survey data from 1983 to 2007–08, we investigate rising rates of female marriage migration in India. We find little evidence to support the idea that marriage migration is a form of disguised economic migration by women. We hypothesise that it is instead a result of the changing patterns of marriage by socioeconomic status. Regression analysis indicates that poor families are increasingly more likely to have brides who in‐migrate, a finding that is robust across a sectoral disaggregation of marriage migration. We also find that urban inequality increases the likelihood of migration by intensifying class stratifications within urban India, increasing the need for poorer urban households to seek migrant brides. Marriage thus serves to reinforce rather than undermine larger patterns of class (and not just caste) inequality.

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)0.001
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePopulation and Development ReviewSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207