Immigrant Versus Non-Immigrant Differences in Demand for Unions : A Test of the Self -Protection Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines differences in demand for unions between native born and foreign born persons in Canada. Surveying 175 participants from immigrant and non-immigrant samples allowed evaluation of assumptions within the selfprotection model. Some differences exist in the perceptions and importance of unions during job search between the two groups. 2 We have entered an era of globalization that not only promotes movement of goods and services between countries, but also movement of labour, through immigration, across the world. This leads to a growing diversity in the labour market, which has a direct and significant impact on organized labour. Specifically, in Canada, the nineties brought on a serge of immigration. According to the 2001 Census completed by the Canadian Federal Government, the percentage of the population that represented individuals residing in Canada who were foreign born in 2001 was 18.4%. This is the highest proportion of immigrants in the population that Canada has seen in the last seventy years. 46 % of new immigrants were between the ages 25-44 (labour force ready), as compared with only 31 % of the Canadian population. Additionally, immigrants accounted for
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".