MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075124412 · doi:10.1177/011719680101000106

Chinese Canadians in Business

2001· article· en· W2075124412 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter S. Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian and Pacific migration journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrodata (statistics)DisadvantageImmigrationEthnic groupDemographic economicsChinese americansSelf-employmentWageChinaCensusArgument (complex analysis)Labour economicsEconomicsBusinessPolitical scienceSociologyEntrepreneurshipPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventionally, restricted opportunities in the open market, in combination with the presence of suitable ethnic resources, provide the explanation as to why some immigrant groups are more inclined towards business undertakings than others. More recently, the immigrant enclave thesis developed in the US suggests that some immigrant entrepreneurs are attracted to ethnic business because of its lucrative returns. Using the case of Chinese Canadians from the microdata of the 1996 Census of Canada, this paper finds that the net returns of self-employment vary among Chinese Canadians. Self-employment brings a net earning disadvantage for foreign-born Chinese-Canadian men, as well as for women irrespective of nativity. Only native-born Chinese-Canadian men in self-employment maintain a net advantage over their counterpart wage workers. These findings suggest that the Chinese Canadians engage in self-employment for different reasons, depending on gender and nativity. Thus, both the argument of business engagement as a “last choice” as implied in the blocked mobility thesis, and that of a “first option” as suggested in the immigrant enclave thesis can be valid even for the same ethnic group.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian and Pacific migration journalSame topicMigration, Ethnicity, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207