International Mobility: Patterns of Exit and Return of Canadians, 1982 to 2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper exploits the unique strengths of the tax-based Longitudinal Administrative Database to measure the flows of Canadians to other countries and the patterns of return over the period from 1982 to 2003. Overall, approximately 0.1% (i.e., one tenth of 1%) of the adult population leaves the country in any given year. Departure rates have generally moved with the state of the Canadian economy, but the trends have clearly been driven by more than this: declining in the 1980s as the economy was going well; turning up towards the end of the decade, but before the economy began to stall in 1989; rising through the early part of the 1990s as the economy was mired in a deep recession, but then continuing to rise through 1997, by which time a strong recovery was underway; and then declining sharply since 2000-thus stemming what many had thought was an inexorable upwards trend-when economic factors were fairly stable. Departure rates decline with age (except for the youngest group); are lower for couples without children than other family types; are high for those in British Columbia, quite low for Francophone Quebecers, and very high for Anglophones in that province; are somewhat lower for those on Employment Insurance (formerly Unemployment Insurance) and substantially higher for those at higher-income levels; and are very much higher for recent immigrants. Departure rates for those at higher-income levels shifted upwards in the 1990s, but returned to pre-1990s rates in more recent years in the case of men, while the shift was maintained for women. Only a minority of those who leave ever return: about 15% within 5 years of their departure. Return rates have, however, increased significantly since 2000-mirroring to a large extent what was happening on the departure side.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".