L’attraction d’immigrants entrepreneurs est-il le meilleur moyen de changer le destin économique provincial?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Canada accueille en moyenne 250 000 a 260 000 immigrants permanents chaque annee. Toutefois, 80% des immigrants choisissent de vivre dans les provinces de l’Ontario, du Quebec et de la Colombie-Britannique. En fait, ce n’est pas surprenant puisque les trois metropoles du pays: Toronto, Montreal et Vancouver sont dans ces trois provinces et la plupart des immigrants internationaux choisissent les grandes villes comme lieux de residence. La volonte recente des petites provinces des maritimes, a predominance rurales, d’attirer et de retenir une part du flux des immigrants qui s’installent au Canada, fait face a de nombreux defis. Depuis le debut des annees 2000, le Nouveau-Brunswick use de ses droits constitutionnels pour selectionner des immigrants entrepreneurs a qui elle propose le role de dynamiseurs pour rehausser son contexte economique morose. Pour ce faire, une « gouvernementalite » subtile de l’immigration a ete mise en place afin de ne pas heurter les sensibilites des habitants de cette province pauvre.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".