MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292343152 · doi:10.1080/00083968.2015.1057856

The third wave: mixed migration from Zimbabwe to South Africa

2015· article· en· W2292343152 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jonathan Crush, Abel Chikanda, Godfrey Tawodzera

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican studies and sociopolitical issues
Canadian institutionsBalsillie School of International Affairs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmigrationRefugeeHuman migrationInternal migrationThird waveGeographyCircular migrationFamily reunificationState (computer science)Political scienceDevelopment economicsDemographic economicsSociologyPopulationImmigrationPolitical economyDemographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migration from Zimbabwe has recently been described as an archetypal form of “mixed migration” in which refugees and migrants are indistinguishable from one another. This paper argues that such a state-centred understanding of mixed migration oversimplifies a far more complex reality and fails to adequately account for the changing nature of Zimbabwean out-migration. Based on data from three separate Southern African Migration Programme (SAMP) surveys undertaken in 1997, 2005 and 2010 at key moments of transition, the paper shows how the form and character of mixed migration from the country has changed over time. The country’s emigration experience since 1990 is divided into three periods or “waves”. The third wave (roughly from 2005 onwards) has seen a major shift away from circular, temporary migration of individual working-age adults towards greater permanence and more family and child migration to South Africa. Zimbabwean migrants no longer see South Africa as a place of temporary economic opportunity for survival but rather as a place to stay and build a future for themselves and their families.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations123
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africainesSame topicAfrican studies and sociopolitical issuesFrench-language works237,207