MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1822547597 · doi:10.25336/p67c80

Academic performance and educational pathways of young allophones: A comparative multivariate analysis of Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver

2013· article· en· W1822547597 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jacques Ledent, Cheryl Aman, Bruce Garnett, Jake Murdoch, David Walters, Marie McAndrew

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Council on Learning
KeywordsImmigrationMultivariate analysisCohortMultivariate statisticsSociologyPsychologyDemographic economicsDemographyGeographyMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using several local and provincial data banks enabling one to follow the school progression of the cohort of students who, in Canada’s three main immigration-destination cities, were expected to graduate secondary school in 2004, this article examines the academic performance and educational pathways of those students who at home use a language other the main language of schooling: non-French speakers in Montreal and non-English speakers in Toronto and Vancouver. First, after accounting for differences in characteristics, those students (target group) are shown to succeed better than the remaining students (comparison group), especially in Vancouver. However, within the target group, there appear to be substantial differences in performance between linguistic subgroups, which are far from being similar in all three cities. Second, the individual and contextual factors that influence the academic performance of the students in the target group appear to be similar for some and different for others in the three cities, while presenting some more-or-less large discrepancies with the corresponding factors pertaining to the comparison group. The article concludes with a few policy implications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207