Where Are They Now? Migration Patterns for Graduates of the University of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an empirical analysis of the migration patterns of University of British Columbia (UBC) graduates, John F. and David F. Helliwell show in their paper how much the situation has changed between the 1960s and the 1990s. Canadian research and graduate education have expanded dramatically, leading many more undergraduates to stay in Canada for their graduate work. According to the Helliwells, this is perhaps the single most important reason why the south-bound flows of bachelor’s graduates has fallen so much from the early 1960s to the 1990s. Consequently, they argue that the resurgence of discussion of a brain drain in the 1990s has much less basis in the data, and probably represents factors specific to certain sectors, such as health spending, research and university financing, where funding support has risen much less rapidly than in the United States. It has also been fuelled to some extent by sharp increases in the numbers in temporary NAFTA visas to Canadians working in the United States, and in part to increasing gaps in salaries and tax rates in the 1990s that favoured high-income earners in the United States, relative to their Canadian counterparts. The UBC graduate data show that over the past five decades there have been continuing reductions in the shares of UBC graduates living in the United States. For all of the large-scale bachelor’s programs the proportion of graduates living in the United States has continued to fall during the 1990s. For the graduate programs, the proportion living outside Canada is and has always been high, reflecting a very international mix of both the student intake and the available career positions. For all degrees, the proportion of 1990s UBC graduates living in the rest of the world is higher than that in the United States. For graduate degrees, the proportion of the graduates subsequently living and working in Canada, and especially in British Columbia, is much higher than the share of Canadian citizens among the incoming students. With respect to the international distribution of those with the highest level of educational aptitude and attainments, as represented by the master’s and PhD graduates of UBC, Canada and British Columbia stand in the middle ground between the United States and the rest of the world. Comparing the citizenship of UBC’s graduate intake with the country of residence of the graduates, the United States is the largest proportionate net recipient (7 per cent U.S. citizen intake, 14 per cent U.S.-resident 1990s PhDs), Canada is the largest recipient in terms of numbers of PhDs (46 per cent Canadian citizen intake, 70 per cent Canadian-resident 1990s PhDs), with students from 100 other countries providing a net flow into Canada and the United States.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".