MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4289752077 · doi:10.46692/9781447347286.003

Mobility

2018· other· en· W4289752077 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction This is the age of mobility (Papademetriou, 2007: 27). Contemporary mobility takes many forms (Adey, 2010); it includes the movement of people, things and ideas, and it also includes the infrastructure that makes movement possible. However, movement alone is not mobility. Tim Cresswell (2010: 19) says that mobility has three important and interconnected aspects. The first is physical movement: for example, a person moving from a rural area to an urban area, or between countries. The second is how that physical movement is embodied and experienced. The third is how that physical movement is represented; as an example, is it represented as a threat or as an opportunity? Adey (2010: 34–9) sums this up in a pithy statement: mobility is movement with meaning. The advent of the ‘new mobilities’ turn in the social sciences and humanities has focused our attention on the centrality of mobility to contemporary life (Sheller and Urry, 2006). In this chapter, we are particularly concerned with the mobility of people, which we categorise in two ways. The first is travel: moving from one place to another and, often, returning, where the stay away is for a short period of time. This broad definition incorporates a wide range of movement, including tourism and business travel. We are particularly interested in travel that crosses international borders. The second is migration. Like travel, this term is difficult to define, and includes internal and international migration, for temporary or permanent time periods, and with a range of different motivations. In this chapter, we are concerned with international migration, and we follow the United Nations’ (UN’s) definition of migration as movement for the purposes of settlement, for at least three months (United Nations Statistics Division, 2017). In this way, we distinguish between international travel and international migration on the basis of settlement intention and length of time. These definitions are, of course, partial and incomplete since the boundaries between a traveller and a migrant remain blurred. This is clearly shown by the diversity of mobile people listed by Sheller and Urry (2006: 207): ‘asylum seekers, international students, terrorists, members of diasporas, holidaymakers, business people, sports stars, refugees, backpackers, commuters, the early retired, young mobile professionals, prostitutes, armed forces’.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1840.061

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 head0.309
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies→French-language works237,207→