MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006747430 · doi:10.1002/psp.2324

Job changing and internal mobility: Insights into the “declining duo” from Canadian administrative data

2020· article· en· W3006747430 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michael Haan, Miguel Cardoso

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulation Space and Place · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsResidenceInternal migrationDemographic economicsEconomicsLabour economicsLabor mobilityPanel Study of Income DynamicsEconomic growthDeveloping country

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Considerable research focuses on why internal migration rates are declining across most of the Western world. Several studies also look at why people are less likely to change jobs than they were in the past. In this paper, we look at the prospect of declining economic returns as an explanation for the joint decline in both phenomena in Canada. We use the Canadian Employer‐Employee Dynamics Database, a linked job–individual–family–firm data set, to look at the 5‐year income trajectories for Canadian workers who changed job and province of residence (movers) in 1997, 2002, and 2007. We compare these returns with those of job switchers who did not move (nonmover job switchers) and with those that changed neither jobs nor province (nonmover nonjob switchers). We find that the mover's premium, defined as the increase in income that accompanies either a job change or a geographical move, has decreased over time and argue that this may help explain why internal migration and labour fluidity have been declining.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.023
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.344
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePopulation Space and PlaceSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207