MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1888261407 · doi:10.25336/p6f62v

Measuring and MismeasuringDiscrimination against Visible Minority Immigrants: The Role of Work Experience

2008· article· en· W1888261407 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yoko Yoshida, Michael R. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantageEarningsImmigrationWork (physics)Demographic economicsWork experienceHuman capitalResidualEconometricsSociologyPsychologyEconomicsLabour economicsPolitical scienceMathematicsEconomic growthAccountingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are two methods for estimating the earnings disadvantage of groups: the residual difference method and the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition. Each method infers disadvantage from differences in earnings of visible minority immigrants and other Canadians, after controls for human capital and job characteristics. We: i) summarize the logic of these methods; ii) critically examine the character of the experience measures used in most of the research; iii) apply the residual difference method to the Workplace and Employee Survey to show how a more thorough approach to the measurement of work experience modifies estimates of earnings disadvantage.

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 score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207