How Parental Internal Migration within China Affects the Aspirations of Left-Behind and Migrant Children: From Comparative and Multidimensional Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author explores how parents’ internal migration within China affects their children’s socioeconomic aspirations and extends previous research by (1) comparing left-behind and migrant children, (2) considering multidimensional aspirations, and (3) testing mechanisms that explain the effects of parents’ migration on their children’s aspirational pathways. The first finding is that left-behind and migrant children have higher migratory aspirations than rural children. However, left-behind and migrant children do not differ from rural children in terms of occupational aspirations. The multidimensional perspective revealed that migrant children do not want mid-status or high-status occupations in smaller cities; rather, they prefer traditional rural-to-urban labor migration pathways, working in low-status occupations in big cities. Finally, the findings verified that most of the hypothesized mechanisms cannot explain the effects of parental migration. The persistence of the effects of parental migration on migrant children suggests that institutional mechanisms may exist to explain the effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".