MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381802382 · doi:10.33679/rmi.v1i1.2593

Growth in High-Skilled Mexican Migration Northward: American and Canadian Destinations

2023· article· en· W4381802382 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey G. Reitz, Melissa Hernández Jasso

Bibliographic record

VenueMigraciones internacionales · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDestinationsImmigrationDemographic economicsWelfareGeographyPolitical scienceEconomic growthTourismEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As migration of university-educated Mexicans to both the United States and Canada has begun to increase, the greater opportunities Canada’s expanding points-based selection system offers for the highly skilled to become permanent residents highlights a question: which factors may induce high-skilled Mexicans to prefer Canadian destinations versus American? Using traditional migration theories to frame interviews with a volunteer sample of 40 young university-educated Mexicans, this study confirms that reasons of proximity, climate, and culture often favor American destinations, while reasons of social acceptance, social welfare, and personal security favor Canadian. Importantly, urban-specific preferences matter. Those factors favoring U.S. destinations in general lead many to prefer southern-tier U.S. cities traditional for less-skilled Mexican migration. Those considering northern U.S. cities often prefer a Canadian choice. Canadian competitiveness in the northern urban market suggests that increased awareness of Canadian immigration opportunities could significantly boost skilled Mexican migration to Canada.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMigraciones internacionalesSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207