Older immigrants living in Switzerland and ambivalence related to return around the retirement period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to explore the links between former guest workers’ attitudes toward return, as they approach retirement age, and ambivalence. More specifically, we seek answers to the following two questions: Do older immigrants modify their intentions toward return around the retirement period? If the answer is positive, we then ask: To which factors are these changes related when looking at intentions to return both before and after retirement? These questions have seldom been analyzed in the sociological literature, and their relation to ambivalence has not yet really been explored. After considering the state of the art, both from a sociology of migration perspective and through a life-course approach, we analyze empirically how older immigrants deal with the question of return. Our data come from a representative survey of approximately 300 older immigrants from Southern Europe (Italy, Portugal, and Spain), aged between 65 and 79 and living in urban Switzerland. Our findings show that (1) while a significant proportion of Italian and Spanish older migrants give up the idea of returning definitively to their country of origin and decide to establish their main residence in Switzerland, among the Portuguese, a significant minority wanted to return before retirement and are still planning to return, expecting to recover full citizenship in their “home” country; (2) changes with respect to return intentions mainly concern former blue-collar workers and white-collar employees; and (3) older immigrants who do not see migration as a positive decision demonstrate more ambivalence about return.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".