Are the Labour Market Benefits to Schooling Different for Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well documented that Aboriginal people generally have lower levels of educational attainment than other groups in Canada, but little is known about the reasons behind this gap. This study is the first of two by the same author investigating the issue in detail. This initial paper focuses on one potential reason for differences in educational attainment between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal individuals: the possibility that Aboriginal individuals reap fewer labour market benefits from additional schooling than do their non-Aboriginal counterparts. The results of this analysis, which is based on the 2006 Census of Population, show that additional schooling is generally associated with a larger decline in the probability of being unemployed for Aboriginal people compared to non-Aboriginal people. In terms of wages and salaries, additional schooling generally yields about the same benefits for both groups. The results hold whether Aboriginal people live off-reserve, on-reserve, or in northern communities. There is also no evidence that Aboriginal people who eventually choose to pursue further education following high school are a more select group than their non-Aboriginal counterparts in terms of academic performance; this suggests that the results in this study are not likely to be explained by self-selection. Furthermore, there is little evidence that perceptions of the benefits to schooling are any different for Aboriginal youth than for non-Aboriginal youth. These findings suggest that the labour market benefits to schooling are not likely to be a factor behind the lower levels of educational attainment among Aboriginal people.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".