Differentiating Emigration from Return Migration of Scholars Using Name-Based Nationality Detection Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most web and digital trace data do not include information about an individual's nationality due to privacy concerns. The lack of data on nationality can create challenges for migration research. It can lead to a left-censoring issue since we are uncertain about the migrant's country of origin. Once we observe an emigration event, if we know the nationality, we can differentiate it from return migration. We propose methods to detect the nationality with the least available data, i.e., full names. We use the detected nationality in comparison with the country of academic origin, which is a common approach in studying the migration of researchers. We gathered 2.6 million unique name-nationality pairs from Wikipedia and categorized them into families of nationalities with three granularity levels to use as our training data. Using a character-based machine learning model, we achieved a weighted F1 score of 84% for the broadest- and 67%, for the most granular, country-level categorization. In our empirical study, we used the trained and tested model to assign nationality to 8+ million scholars' full names in Scopus data. Our results show that using the country of first publication as a proxy for nationality underestimates the size of return flows, especially for countries with a more diverse academic workforce, such as the USA, Australia, and Canada. We found that around 48% of emigration from the USA was return migration once we used the country of name origin in contrast to 33% based on academic origin. In the most recent period, 79% of scholars whose affiliation has consistently changed from the USA to China, and are considered emigrants, have Chinese names in contrast to 41% with a Chinese academic origin. Our proposed methods in addressing left-censoring issues are beneficial for other research that uses digital trace data to study migration.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".