MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075835846 · doi:10.1111/1468-2435.00136

Propensity of Canada's Foreign‐born to Claim Unemployment Insurance Benefits

2001· article· en· W2075835846 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bill Marr, Pierre L. Siklos

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Migration · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationUnemploymentRefugeeDemographic economicsForeign bornEconomicsNative-BornDemographyPolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the relationship between claiming unemployment insurance benefits in Canada and the immigrant class under which immigrants were admitted (namely skilled workers, assisted relatives, family class, refugees), using a new data set that combines income tax and immigration records. Claims rates (or the proportion of immigrants who claimed unemployment insurance benefits) are calculated for each immigrant landing class for the cohorts of immigrants who landed in 1980, 1985 and 1989; for each cohort, annual claims rates are presented from the year after landing to 1995. The claims rates indicate that there are significant differences among the different immigrant landing classes: those admitted as skilled workers have relatively low claims rates, those in the family class or assisted relatives have higher rates, and refugees have the highest rates. For all immigrant landing classes, claims rates rise rapidly during the two or three years after arrival in Canada, but decline thereafter for all classes. Differences in claims rates on unemployment insurance benefits remain across the immigrant landing classes after general economic conditions and some characteristics of the immigrants are controlled.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational MigrationSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207