MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1819429034 · doi:10.3138/cpp.41.s1.s1

Occupational Regulation and Foreign Qualification Recognition: An Overview

2015· article· en· W1819429034 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Arthur Sweetman, James Ted McDonald, Lesleyanne Hawthorne

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicOccupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsCredentialScope (computer science)MonopolyGovernment (linguistics)BusinessGovernment regulationOccupational licensingScale (ratio)ImmigrationPublic policyPublic economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsLawMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The theory and practice of occupational regulation are outlined together with associated issues regarding foreign qualification recognition. Trade-offs between public safety and the monopoly power inherent in occupational regulation are highlighted, together with a description of the increasing scope of occupational regulation both in terms of the numbers of occupations coming under regulation from government and the share of workers subject to those regulations. The focus is on the implications of occupational regulation for highly skilled immigrants seeking employment in the occupation in which they hold a relevant academic credential. For countries outside of the United States, it is striking how little quantitative research has been conducted in this area. A better understanding is crucial, since policies on and approaches to occupational regulation are evolving rapidly, in part because of the increasing scale of skilled migration.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.283
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.047 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations47
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicOccupational and Professional Licensing RegulationFrench-language works237,207