MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047232911

A Logistic Regression Analysis of Life Satisfaction amongst African Immigrants in Hamilton, Canada

2020· article· en· W3047232911 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Boadi Agyekum

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationLogistic regressionRegression analysisDemographic economicsGeographyPsychologySociologyDemographyStatisticsMathematicsEconomicsArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many minority immigrants currently face severe human rights violation through discrimination and racism, influencing how they rate their life satisfaction in their host destinations. This paper examines the factors that affect African immigrants’ life satisfaction in a mid-sized Canadian city. Using a combination of descriptive and multivariate methods applied on a sample survey (n=236) conducted in Hamilton, Ontario, this article investigates socio-demographic and health-related factors that predict life satisfaction amongst African immigrants, specifically, Ghanaians and Somalis. Findings suggest that Ghanaian immigrants reported greater life satisfaction than their Somali counterparts. People with residency in Canada over 10 years are more likely to report higher life satisfaction than those with length of residence from zero to ten years. Older individuals (i.e., age 25-54) are more likely to express higher life satisfaction compared to younger individuals (i.e., 18-24). The findings indicate that socio-demographic conditions matter for immigrants’ life satisfaction

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207