MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1631168503 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2015-010

Do Economic Principal Applicants Work in Their Intended Regulated Occupation? Introducing the National Household Survey and Immigration Landing File Linkage Database

2015· article· en· W1631168503 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lorna Jantzen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationPrincipal (computer security)DatabaseNational databaseWork (physics)Demographic economicsRecord linkagePolitical scienceEconomicsSociologyEngineeringLawComputer scienceDemographyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immigrants who come to Canada as economic principal applicants are selected for their potential to contribute to the Canadian economy. This research introduces a Statistics Canada data set, the 2011 National Household Survey and Immigration Landing File, which brings the pre- and post-landing information together. Occupational match rates and benchmarks are calculated for selected regulated occupations that are covered by the Pan-Canadian Framework for the Assessment and Recognition of Foreign Qualifications. Match rates are based on economic principal applicants’ intended four-digit National Occupation Code (NOC) occupations as stated on the Immigration Landing File (ILF) and their actual occupation as reported on the National Household Survey (NHS). This research highlights that that there is substantial variation among the five occupational categories that were selected for this study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207