MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W982620210 · doi:10.2747/0272-3638.7.6.497

MOBILITY INTENTION AND SUBSEQUENT RELOCATION

2013· article· en· W982620210 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Geography · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelocationDisadvantagedConceptualizationSpousePsychologySample (material)Demographic economicsSociologyQuality of life (healthcare)Social psychologyGerontologyEconomic growthEconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conceptualization and analysis of the relations between dwelling and neighborhood satisfaction, movement intention, and mobility presented in previous research suffer from two major deficiencies: (1) the role of other life events such as marriage, divorce, retirement, and loss of spouse are usually ignored; (2) important differences between different sociodemographic groups are obscured. In this paper a more general model of mobility including other life events is presented and the subgroup differences are explored in terms of the difficulties experienced by disadvantaged groups, particularly the elderly, in translating expectations into action. Two sets of longitudinal data are utilized, one from the Community Development Strategies Evaluation undertaken in nine U.S. cities and the other from the Quality of Life Surveys collected by the Institute of Behavioural Research at York University for a Canadian sample. Consistent results are obtained which show that not only do substantial numbers of respondents...

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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.240 · 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