MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long‐Term Contribution of Immigration to Population Renewal in Canada: A Simulation

2015· article· en· W2058123987 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrice Dion, Éric Caron‐Malenfant, Chantal Grondin, Dominic Grenier

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulation and Development Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptation
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationPopulationPaceDemographic economicsFertilityTerm (time)DemographyImmigration policyProjections of population growthGeographyEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze the direct and indirect demographic contribution of immigration to the foreign‐origin composition of the Canadian population according to various projection scenarios over a century, from 2006 to 2106. More specifically, we use Statistics Canada's Demosim microsimulation model to assess the long‐term sensitivity to immigration levels and the frequency of mixed unions of the share of immigrants in Canada and of persons who have at least one ancestor who arrived after 2006. The results of the simulations show that the population renewal process through immigration happens at a fast pace in a high immigration and low fertility country such as Canada. Under the scenarios developed, immigrants who entered after 2006 and their descendants could form the majority of the population by 2058 at the earliest and by 2079 at the latest and could represent between 62 percent and 88 percent in 2106. They also show that mixed unions are a key element of the speed at which the changes are likely to occur in the long run.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePopulation and Development ReviewSame topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptationFrench-language works237,207