MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967416872 · doi:10.1080/01419870.2019.1627380

Origins and Destinations: a rejoinder

2019· article· en· W2967416872 on OpenAlexaff
Renee Luthra, Thomas Soehl, Roger Waldinger

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnic and Racial Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Health, Geopolitics, Historical Geography
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsDestinationsState (computer science)Unit (ring theory)SociologyEconomic geographyPolitical economyPolitical scienceGeographyLawPsychologyComputer scienceTourism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In today's age of mass migration, the people crossing borders shape their own destinies, doing what neither home nor host state wants, seeking progress through movement.In both Europe and the United States, the immigrants' search for a better life has yielded an even more fateful result: the emergence of the "second generation," a population comprised of the immigrants' children, whether born in the society of immigration or brought there at a very young age from abroad.For the past quarter century, the question of how these "new" immigrant offspring will fare and why their trajectories might differ has attracted ever growing research attention while simultaneously generating continuing scholarly controversy.Origins and Destinations: The Making of the Second Generation responds to this debate, building on a generation of scholarship and developing a new way of thinking about the problem at hand.We are gratified by the response that this new approach elicited from the distinguished scholars, all prominent contributors to the debate on both sides of the Atlantic, who commented on our book.We also extend our appreciation to the editors of Ethnic and Racial Studies for allowing our book to gain such attention and for giving us the opportunity to respond to our critics' insightful reactions.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnic and Racial StudiesSame topicMigration, Health, Geopolitics, Historical GeographyFrench-language works237,207