Spatial patterns of international migrant resident settlement and incorporation in Winnipeg Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Comparing the settlement patterns of two cohorts of international movers (2001–2006 and 2010–2011) in Winnipeg, Manitoba, highlights the relationships between the settlement choices and actions of immigrant residents, and the economic, social, and built environmental conditions in place. Data from the Canadian census are analyzed through a spatial lag negative binomial regression model with results interpreted through a relational incorporation framework. Findings raise doubts about the connection between spatial concentration and social isolation, and complicate the idea of migrant resident housing trajectories as progressive and linear. In addition to the influence of formal state and nongovernmental supports, the interactions between the formal and informal also play an important role in settlement patterns in Winnipeg. Concentrated settlement is found to be persistent for both cohorts, alongside a persistent positive relationship between percent visible minority resident and settlement. The spatial patterns in the case suggest that settling near co‐ethnic and co‐national residents could be an important informal strategy to reduce the costs of migration and settlement. Additionally, the results suggest that multifamily households are an informal strategy to address failures in the more formalized employment and housing markets. The continued importance of multifamily households for the earlier 2001–2006 cohort additionally suggests the need to pay attention to the possibility of a type of second settlement that begins after initial formal housing supports expire. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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".