MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007490527 · doi:10.1080/19438192.2010.491295

High‐income Indian immigrants in Canada

2010· article· en· W2007490527 on OpenAlex
Sandeep Agrawal, Alex Lovell

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth Asian Diaspora · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiasporaImmigrationCensusDemographic economicsGeographyPopulationDevelopment economicsEconomic growthEconomicsSociologyDemographyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper develops a socio‐economic profile of the Indo‐Canadian diaspora, arguably one of the largest Indian diaspora in the world and the second largest immigrant group in Canada, by analyzing landing records, tax data, and census and micro data files. The study suggests that Indian immigrants in Canada can be viewed as forming two broad streams: those who achieve incremental upward mobility with time in the country; and, those who do not experience much upward mobility even after residing in the country for many years. In particular, it examines the key determinants of the success of high‐income earners. The paper compares the Indo‐Canadian economic experience with that of the general Canadian population as well as other immigrants, principally Chinese immigrants. The paper argues that Canada has not benefited from the economic edge Indian and other transnational professionals and entrepreneurs offer.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · 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