MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099192076 · doi:10.1068/c18r

Immigrant Entrepreneurship, Institutional Discrimination, and Implications for Public Policy: A Case Study in Toronto

2007· article· en· W2099192076 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carlos Teixeira, Lucia Lo, Marie Truelove

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning C Government and Policy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityToronto Metropolitan UniversityOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationEntrepreneurshipSomaliMulticulturalismMetropolitan areaGovernment (linguistics)Economic growthCensusFocus groupPolitical sciencePublic policySociologyGeographyEconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immigration since World War 2 has been a primary engine of economic, social, and cultural change in Canada. Two of its important characteristics have been its ‘urban’ character and the non-European origins of immigrants since the 1960s. The Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) has been a major destination for those immigrants who have entered the self-employed sector of the economy in ever-larger numbers. The authors focus on the barriers and challenges experienced by the Polish, Portuguese, Caribbean, Korean, and Somali immigrants in the establishment and operation of their businesses in the Toronto CMA. With information collected through key-informant interviews, a questionnaire survey, and focus groups, it is found that, despite the Canadian commitment to multiculturalism at all levels of government, visible-minority entrepreneurs still confront more barriers in their business practice than do non-visible-minority entrepreneurs, with access to financing being a persistent problem. Given the increasingly multicultural nature of major Canadian cities and the acknowledged role of immigrants as an engine of economic growth, the authors identify barriers to entrepreneurship among immigrants as an area of clear concern both for policymakers and for scholars, and suggest solutions to address this concern.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0270.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations106
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning C Government and PolicySame topicMigration, Ethnicity, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207