MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966721836 · doi:10.21083/crrf.v27i1.8581

Commuters and communities: How employment mobility affects community development in source communities

2025· article· en· W2966721836 on OpenAlex
Joshua Barrett

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunity developmentEconomic growthGeographyBusinessEnvironmental planningEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past decade, scholars (Hannam, et al., 2006; Sheller and Urry, 2006) have identified a ‘mobilities shift’ observing increased levels, new forms, and different patterns of mobility among people, ideas, and knowledge. One type of mobility is Employment-Related Geographical Mobility (E-RGM) which is defined as people who commute for work away from their place of residence that involves more than 2 hours daily to more extended absences and journeys lasting weeks, months or even years. The purpose of this paper, which is part of the On the Move Partnership: Employment-Related Geographical Mobility in the Canadian Context 7-year SSHRC funded project, is to examine the impacts of E-RGM on community development in source communities. Specific impacts include a mobile workers’ investment of time, financial investments, and emotional attachments to place within his or her source community.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.273 · 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