Climate change and migration: A review and new framework for analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article presents a new interpretive framework for understanding the implications of climate change for migration, and reviews and reflects on existing evidence and research gaps in light of this framework. Most existing climate‐migration research is heavily environment‐centric, even when acknowledging the importance of contextual or intervening factors. In contrast, the framework proposed here considers five different pathways through which climate change is affecting, or might affect, migration: short‐term shocks, long‐term climatic and related changes, environmental “pull” factors, climate adaptation and mitigation measures, and perceptions and narratives. In reviewing the existing evidence relating to each of these pathways, the paper finds among other things that short‐term shocks may simultaneously increase and reduce migration; that the evidence on long‐term trends provides a weak basis for understanding future dynamics; and that more attention needs to be paid to the other three pathways, by researchers and policymakers alike. Overall, the proposed framework and associated evidence review suggest a different and broader understanding of the migration implications of climate change from that outlined in the IPCC's most recent assessment, or in many existing reviews. This article is categorized under: Climate and Development Knowledge and Action in Development
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it