MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406967457 · doi:10.1080/00083968.2024.2427209

Jumping over histories: transborder migration from colonial Mozambique to colonial Zimbabwe ca 1945–1975

2025· article· en· W4406967457 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Allen Isaacman, Joy M. Chadya, Abraham Seda

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismGeographyAncient historyPolitical scienceEthnologyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on over 200 interviews and archival sources, this article examines clandestine African cross-border labour migration from colonial Mozambique to Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) from the 1940s to 1975. At the height of the labour migrations, 1945–1960, as many as sixty thousand migrants per year left Mozambique for Southern Rhodesia. While existing scholarship on cross-border migration has opened up important ways of conceptualizing such migrations, we extend the study by highlighting three overlooked but pertinent issues. First, we contend that the migrations had historical antecedents: men and women had crossed borders for socio-economic and political opportunities. Second, we argue that the colonial labour migrations were built on Indigenous cartographic knowledge and mobility practices, and long-standing Indigenous geographical knowledge continued to guide them, as in the past. Third, we underline the actual challenges that thousands of migrants faced in walking long distances from Mozambique to Southern Rhodesia.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines→Same topicAfrican history and culture studies→French-language works237,207→