MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214851202 · doi:10.1111/imig.12948

Reflections on return migration: Understanding how African immigrants in Canada contemplate return

2021· article· en· W3214851202 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joseph Mensah, Augustine Owusu Ansah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Migration · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHomelandImmigrationRacismSocioeconomic statusMultinomial logistic regressionDemographic economicsSociologyDemographyGeographyPolitical scienceGender studiesEconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Even though research on return migration has flourished in the last decade, we still know very little about how immigrants contemplate the decision to return to the homeland. Using multinomial logistic regression, we examined the variables underpinning the return intentions of African immigrants in Canada—specifically, Ghanaians and Somalis in Toronto and Vancouver. Our key independent variables included immigrants’ socioeconomic characteristics, their time‐ and place‐utility factors, their attachments to the homeland, their integration into the Canadian society and their perceived levels of racism in Canada. We found that respondents who were born in Somalia were less likely to have return intentions, compared with those who were born in Ghana. Also, those who lived in Toronto were more likely to have return intentions relative to those who lived in Vancouver. Moreover, those who perceived the level of racism in Canada to be high were more likely to have return intentions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational MigrationSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207