THE EMERGENCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF RETURN MIGRATION INTENTIONS AMONG ROMANIAN MIGRANTS IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dynamics of Romanian return migration have long been overshadowed by the scale of emigration; they are becoming visible as communities abroad mature. The migrants consistently consider returning, and this intention is classified into various types, such as permanent return (often upon retirement) or re-migration (subsequent departure, indicating failure to reintegrate). Although nearly half of the study participants in Canada view returning positively, few have concrete plans, demonstrating the importance of objective factors in the decision to return. The decision is a “complex cocktail” of factors of attraction like the opportunity to invest remittances in property and the desire to enjoy a lower cost of living in retirement. In contrast, reintegration is strongly hindered by deep dissatisfaction with institutional quality in Romania, perceived as being marked by corruption and a lack of meritocracy. Subjectively, a constant factor is the emotional cost of uprooting, such as homesickness, which acts as a powerful force of attraction. However, upon returning, migrants often encounter social mistrust and mental differences, making social reintegration challenging and increasing the likelihood of re-emigration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".