MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073780112 · doi:10.1353/cpp.2010.0016

The Immigrant Wage Gap in Canada: Quebec and the Rest of Canada

2010· article· en· W2073780112 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Serge Nadeau, Aylin Seçkin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationWageDemographic economicsRest (music)Differential (mechanical device)Political scienceEconomicsLabour economicsGeographyMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cet article, nous analysons la nature des différences que l’on observe dans les écarts de salaires entre les hommes immigrants et les Canadiens de naissance, au Québec et dans le reste du Canada (ROC), au cours de la période 1980–2000. Comparativement aux Canadiens de naissance, la performance des immigrants du ROC sur le plan salarial a toujours été supérieure à celle des immigrants du Québec, et s’est constamment améliorée vis-à-vis de celle-ci. Nous montrons que le phénomène n’est pas dû au fait que les politiques d’immigration du Québec sont différentes de celles du ROC, puisque l’écart serait encore plus important si le Québec accueillait les mêmes types d’immigrants que le ROC; l’on ne peut pas non plus expliquer le phénomène par le fait que les immigrants subiraient plus de discrimination au Québec. En fait, nous observons que la différence grandissante entre l’écart salarial immigrants-Canadiens de naissance au Québec et celui dans le ROC reflète surtout l’évolution de la <i>prime</i> salariale dont profitent les immigrants qui obtiennent la citoyenneté canadienne (et dont ne profitent pas ceux qui ne sont que canadiens permanents); cette prime a considérablement diminué au Québec, alors qu’elle est restée stable dans le ROC au cours de la période étudiée.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

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

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207