Putting on the moves: Individual, household, and community-level determinants of residential mobility in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Background</b>: Internal residential mobility is an important contributor to economic vitality, helping to address gaps in the labour market, assisting regions to develop comparative advantages, and encouraging the circulation of skills, capital, and networks within a country. Mobility is, however, a complex sociological phenomenon influenced by individual, household, and community-level variables. <b>Objective</b>: This article examines the combined impact of individual, household, and community characteristics on both short- and long-distance residential mobility in Canada. The study is motivated by a broader concern with economic development and community vitality, particularly in smaller towns and cities that have recently struggled to attract newcomers. <b>Methods</b>: A series of multilevel random intercept regression models are run on Canadian census data from 2006. Canada-wide findings are compared to those for five sizes of community - from small towns with fewer than 10,000 people to major metropolitan cities. <b>Results</b>: Despite the continued growth of major metropolitan areas, city size is not an attractor in and of itself. Rather, one of the most powerful draws for both small towns and large cities is the diversity of the existing population, as measured by the proportion of residents who are immigrants and/or visible minorities. <b>Conclusions</b>: These findings challenge some long-held stereotypes about rural living, and suggest that rural development strategies ought to include measures for enhancing diversity as a means of attracting all types of internal migrants to small towns and cities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".