MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413059470 · doi:10.3390/populations1030016

Social, Cultural, and Civic Reintegration of Returning Rural Migrants in China: A Multidimensional Perspective

2025· article· en· W4413059470 on OpenAlexaff
Zhenxiang Chen

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulations · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)ChinaScope (computer science)Survey data collectionDimension (graph theory)Hofstede's cultural dimensions theoryMultilevel modelScale (ratio)SociologyEconomic geographyDemographic economicsSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePsychologyGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the reintegration of returning rural migrants in China is crucial due to the large scale of return migration and its associated challenges. While existing research has largely focused on economic reintegration, this study broadens the scope to include social, cultural, and civic dimensions. Using data from the China Labor-force Dynamics Survey (CLDS) 2016 and employing multilevel ordered logistic regression, the research uncovers the following key patterns: (i) Determinants differ largely across dimensions; (ii) The roles of the same determinants can also differ significantly across dimensions; and (iii) There are significant community-level variations across dimensions. The findings emphasize that success in one dimension, such as economic reintegration, does not necessarily translate into success in others. Moreover, complex interconnections between dimensions reveal positive, negative, and non-linear relationships, underscoring the multidimensional nature of reintegration. These insights highlight the importance of considering multiple dimensions to fully understand the reintegration processes of returning migrants.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePopulationsSame topicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207