The Employment Experiences of Canadian Refugees: Measuring the Impact of Human and Social Capital on Quality of Employment*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passant en revue les expériences de réétablissement de 525 réfugiés adultes vivant au Canada, cette étude utilise une approche de régression multiple pour faire une enquête sur les répercussions du capital humain et social sur la qualité de L'emploi des réfugiés. La «théorie de la structuration « de Giddens fournit un cadre interprétatif utile pour décrire comment la compétence des réfugiés est contrainte ou habilitée par les règies et les ressources régissant le processus d'intégration à L'emploi. Les résultats montrent que les réfugiés ont recours aux liens à la fois de la famille et du groupe ethnique dans la recherche d'un emploi. Cependant, restreints par une combinaison de barrières structurales, un nombre significatif de réfugiés découvrent que leur capital humain a peu ou pas de valeur sur le marché du travail canadien et, de plus, que les réseaux qu'ils utilisent en ce moment ne sont peut‐être pas suffisants pour compenser la chute de leur mobilité d'emploi. Examining the resettlement experiences of 525 adult refugees living in Canada, this study uses a multiple regression approach to investigate the impact of human and social capital on refugees' quality of employment. Giddens' structuration theory acts as a useful interpretive framework to describe how refugee agency is constrained and enabled by the rules and resources governing the employment integration process. Results show that refugees use both family and ethnic‐group ties as resources in searching for employment. However, constrained by a combination of structural barriers, a significant proportion of refugees find that their human capital has little or no value in the Canadian labour market and, moreover, that the networks refugees are presently employing may not be sufficient to compensate for their downward occupational mobility.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".