MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004770349 · doi:10.1111/1467-9663.00193

The spatial limits to entrepreneurship: Immigrant entrepreneurs in Canada

2002· article· en· W2004770349 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Hiebert

Bibliographic record

VenueTijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationEntrepreneurshipDemographic economicsGlobalizationRefugeeLabour economicsEconomicsSmall businessBusinessMarket economyPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Labour market participation and the income of immigrants in the Canadian economy, both as employees and entrepreneurs, is investigated. Special attention is devoted to the situation of those who entered Canada as business immigrants, who have been admitted into the country due to their past accomplishments in managing and establishing businesses in other parts of the world. This programme is based, essentially, on the logic of globalisation, that success in one location can be replicated in another despite different economic and regulatory environments. Using the Canadian Immigration Database, which links the landing records of immigrants with their subsequent tax returns, the economic performance of different types of immigrants to Canada is explored. The data reveal that business immigrants have lower incomes and rates of entrepreneurship than would be expected; in contrast, refugees settling in Canada appear to have higher rates of participation in the Canadian labour market as well as higher incomes. This turn of events suggests that there are critical spatial limits to entrepreneurial success. More precisely, business acumen gained in one location may not apply in another.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations35
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale GeografieSame topicMigration, Ethnicity, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207