MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405248912 · doi:10.1111/imig.12256

Which Child Immigrants Face Earnings Disparity? Age‐at‐immigration, Ethnic Minority Status and Labour Market Attainment in Canada

2016· article· en· W2405248912 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Krishna Pendakur, Ravi Pendakur

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Migration · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of OttawaSimon Fraser UniversityCummings Foundation
KeywordsImmigrationMicrodata (statistics)EarningsDemographic economicsEducational attainmentCensusEthnic groupDemographyEarnings growthGeographyPopulationPolitical scienceEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using Canadian Census microdata from 1990 to 2005, we investigate the earnings attainment of immigrants to Canada in 6 age‐at‐arrival cohorts. In comparison to past work we extend our understanding regarding three dimensions of the age at immigration debate: we explore heterogeneity across fine grained age‐at‐arrival cohorts, over a fifteen‐year period and across different ethnic groups. We find that white immigrants and female immigrants arriving in Canada prior to age 18 face little earnings disparity. In contrast, visible minority male immigrants face significant earnings disparity regardless of their age‐at‐migration, and additionally this disparity increases sharply with age‐at‐migration. We find a break in earnings attainment at an age‐of‐arrival of 17, with immigrants arriving after this age performing much worse than those arriving at this age or earlier. The patterns observed are found for visible minority immigrants as a whole, and for Chinese, South Asian and African/Black origin immigrants examined separately.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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