MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593289339 · doi:10.1177/0975425316683861

An Analysis of ‘Migrant-intensity’ in India and Indonesia

2017· article· en· W2593289339 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gregory F. Randolph, Mukta Naik

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Urbanization Asia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsScholarshipTransformative learningUrbanizationMetropolitan areaInternal migrationEconomic geographyCensusMigration studiesEmpirical researchEconomic growthSociologyGeographyPolitical scienceGender studiesPopulationDeveloping countryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging economies are witnessing the large-scale movement of internal migrants. While the popular discourse on internal migration imagines migrants from villages flooding into the large metropolis, scholarship is increasingly emphasizing the existence of multiple migration pathways, as well as the emergence of more dispersed patterns of urbanization. To root these discussions in particular geographies, this paper introduces the concept of ‘migrant-intensity’ as an empirical way of understanding the places that experience migration in the most profound and transformative ways—where the challenges and opportunities inherent in transience and mobility are most apparent. Analyzing census data from India and Indonesia, we show that ‘migrant-intensity’—a measure of in- and out-migrant concentration—is highest in a diverse set of non-metropolitan spaces, including secondary and tertiary cities and ‘rurban’ geographies. We argue that migrant-intensity as an empirical tool can advance scholarship on complex migration patterns by identifying the places at the crossroads of migrant pathways. Moreover, it can help planners and policymakers to address unique challenges, opportunities and constraints of migrant-intensive places.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Urbanization AsiaSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207