Temporary Foreign Workers and Former International Students as a Source of Permanent Immigration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare the economic outcomes of former Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs) and former international students to immigrants who have no Canadian human capital at the time of landing. First, controlling for all possible variables that are adjustable under the current Canadian points system, we find that TFWs and students have better earning and employment outcomes, although by four years after landing, there is no difference between the employment outcomes of students or earnings of TFWs and workers with no pre-immigration Canadian human capital. Predicting the points that immigrants would obtain based on their observable human capital under the points system, each point increases earnings by around 2 percent and the probability of being employed by around half a percent. We also find that the predicted points of the respondent helps predict the earning and employment outcomes of the spouse. Next we examine the outcomes of immigrants based on entry class separately by gender. We find that both male and female Principal Applicants entering through the Skilled Worker program perform much better than immigrants entering through most of the other classes, although, for males, Principal Applicants entering under the Family Class are more likely to be employed at six months and two years after landing. Finally, restricting the sample to immigrants who were directly assessed based on economic criteria (Skilled Worker Principal Applicants), we discover that for males, immigrants who had previously worked in Canada as TFWs have much better outcomes in terms of entry earnings than immigrants who have no pre-Canadian experience at landing. Former international students experience an advantage in terms of hourly earnings, but much smaller than that experienced by TFWs, and students experience no earnings advantage in terms of weekly earnings. Overall, the evidence suggests that temporary foreign worker or student status does provide some signal of how well an immigrant will integrate economically.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".