Differential risk of employment in more physically demanding jobs among a recent cohort of immigrants to Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the proportion of a recent cohort of immigrants to Canada who were working in jobs that were more physically demanding than those in which they worked before migration to Canada. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort of immigrants to Canada with occupational position measured before and 2 and 4 years after arrival in Canada. SUBJECTS: Respondents to Statistics Canada's Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada (LSIC). The LSIC surveyed a representative sample of immigrants, aged 15 and older, who arrived in Canada between November 2000 and December 2001. For the purpose of this study, the sample was restricted to respondents who had worked before immigrating and were working when re-interviewed 2 (n = 4331) or 4 (n = 4238) years after arrival in Canada. MAIN OUTCOME: Employment in an occupation with higher physical demands than that employed in before arrival in Canada. RESULTS: Respondents with less proficiency at speaking English and family class or refugee applicants were the most likely to be employed in occupations with higher physical demands both 2 and 4 years after arrival in Canada. CONCLUSIONS: Employment in a more physically demanding occupation may pose particular risks of workplace injury. In this sample of immigrants to Canada, respondents with poorer English skills and refugees (factors that may increase this risk) were more likely to be employed in more physically demanding occupations. Greater attention to the prevention of workplace injuries among particular groups of new immigrants to Canada is required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".