MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388524771 · doi:10.1177/21632324231205996

Digital Disruptions in the South Africa–Zimbabwe Remittance Corridor During COVID-19

2023· article· en· W4388524771 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Crush, Godfrey Tawodzera

Bibliographic record

VenueMigration and Development · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsBalsillie School of International Affairs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemittancePandemicContext (archaeology)UnemploymentDevelopment economicsNarrativeGeographyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Economic growthPolitical scienceSocioeconomicsEconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on migrant remittances has generated a great deal of confusion and debate. This article aims to test three conflicting global and local narratives about the relationship between the pandemic and remittance flows in the South Africa–Zimbabwe remittance corridor. We refer to these as remittance pessimism, remittance resilience and remittance rerouting narratives. The article presents the pre-pandemic background context of migration from Zimbabwe to South Africa, the evidence for a shift from informal to formal remitting during the pandemic, and the implications of the remittance rerouting narrative for other corridors. We find that many Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa experienced severe economic impacts including unemployment, income loss and lack of access to COVID-19 relief measures. We conclude that there was a significant increase in formal, primarily digital, remittances during the pandemic and a decline in informal remittance conveyance. We highlight the need for more research in other remittance corridors to identify similarities and differences between them in terms of COVID-19 impacts and the shift from informal to formal remittances enabled by digital platforms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMigration and DevelopmentSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207