A note on Canadian migration to the United States during the 1980s and 1990s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable media attention had been directed towards the flow of highly talented Canadians to the United States in the 1990s. There are firm theoretical reasons, however, to believe that qualitative differences in migration began as early as the 1980s, owing to the widening distribution of earnings and the related increased returns to education in the United States relative to Canada, both of which could result in qualitative improvements in the migration flow. US immigration policy remained essentially unchanged during the 1980s, but changed markedly in the 1990s owing to the implementation of the Canada–US Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA) and its successor, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). We use a flexible empirical approach to document these changes in immigrant quality using 1980, 1990 and 2000 US census data. Our results suggest that improvements in Canadian immigrant quality occurred during the 1990s, but these also happened earlier, casting doubt on the hypothesis of improving Canadian immigrant quality in the 1990s. Quantile regressions also show that improvement in the entry quality of immigrants was not limited to the upper tail of the earnings distribution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".