MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Immigrants' Propensity to Self-Employment: Evidence from Canada

2001· article· en· W2077502849 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter S. Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Migration Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationDemographic economicsResidenceSelf-employmentHuman capitalOddsDescriptive statisticsLabour economicsLogistic regressionEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthEntrepreneurshipMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the appeal of the “enclave thesis” and the “blocked mobility thesis,” there are other relevant factors that help to explain why some immigrants engage in self-employment. Using the Longitudinal Immigration Data Base in Canada for 1980 to 1995, this study identifies characteristics of immigrants that yield a higher or lower propensity to self-employment. Descriptive statistics show that immigrants often use self-employment to supplement employment income and that the intensity and extensity of self-employment vary among immigrant entry cohorts, depending on gender, the year of immigration, and duration of stay in Canada. A logistic model predicting self-employment indicates that arrival in better economic years, longer residence in Canada, higher educational levels, older immigrants, and immigrants selected for human capital have higher odds of self-employment. These findings suggest that even though immigrants may be attracted or driven to self-employment, better-equipped immigrants are more inclined to engage in self-employment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations159
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Migration ReviewSame topicMigration, Ethnicity, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207