Evaluation of Selected Components of Standard of Living and Quality of life within a Polish Diaspora: the Example of the Greater Toronto Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main goal of the article is to describe selected components of standard of living and quality of life within the Polish diaspora of the Greater Toronto Area which includes four districts: Halton, Peel, York and Durham. An author-composed model of mutually affecting objective factors (standard of living) and subjective factors (quality of life) will be presented in the paper. Individual factors (demographic, social, cultural, economic, legal, educational, geographical, and health-related) included in the field research among respondents and based on assigned indices influencing the quality of life in the Polish diaspora of the Greater Toronto Area, will be presented. The evaluation of satisfaction with areas of life selected by the Canadian Polish diaspora will be discussed, as well as their evaluation of standard of living in the Greater Toronto Area, such as Polish schools, parishes, travel agencies, and non-governmental organisations (such as the Song and Dance Ensemble or scouting). Their evaluation of whether their needs were met and accessibility to selected components of the city will also be analysed. Data correlating the length of time respondents have lived in Toronto, and a general evaluation of the quality of life will be presented.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".