MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138756538 · doi:10.1017/s0714980821000064

Is There a Cohort Explanation for Declines in Elderly Migration?

2021· article· en· W3138756538 on OpenAlexafffund
Barry Edmonston, Sharon M. Lee, Zheng Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDemographyCohortCohort effectGeographyCohort studyMultivariate analysisPopulationGerontologyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research documented a dramatic decline in the residential mobility of elderly Canadians (65 years and older) since 1961. We examine more recent data from the 2011 and 2016 censuses to update findings and extend previous research. We first found that elderly residential mobility has continued to decline. There were substantial declines of 20 per cent and more for all types of residential mobility. Second, descriptive analysis of changes over time in the proportion of the population that lives in a different province than their province of birth for 1871 to the present suggests that the 1906-1925 birth cohorts experienced migration rates that were slightly higher than comparable later cohorts. Third, multivariate analysis of 1971-2016 interprovincial migration data shows that the 1906-1925 birth cohort who entered early adult years during World War II had higher migration rates than earlier or later birth cohorts. The cohort explanation accounted for 10 per cent of the decrease in elderly migration between 1981 and 2016. A cohort explanation can therefore contribute to understanding decreased elderly migration, but many questions remain for future study.

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)0.001
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 score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207