Intergenerational differences in occupational injury and fatality rates among Canada’s immigrants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Empirical evidence on occupational injury and/or fatality rates among Canada's immigrants has been largely mixed and has almost exclusively focused on the first generation. Over time, as immigrants assimilate into the economy, future generations may be expected to work in less hazardous occupations compared with prior generations. There has been no prior analysis of the differences in occupational injury and fatality rates among later generations. AIMS: To analyse whether there are intergenerational differences in occupational injury and fatality rates among the first, second and third (or more) immigrant generations in Canada. METHODS: Data drawn from the 2011 National Household Survey and the Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada were used to determine the difference in occupational injury and fatality rates between the first or the third generation and the second generation, using a Poisson regression framework. RESULTS: Second-generation immigrants worked in jobs with lower occupational injury rates compared with the first generation and the third generation (or more). Similar results were observed for occupational fatality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Second-generation immigrants worked in less hazardous jobs compared with the first generation and compared with the third (or more) generations. These results suggest that the second generation may not face the same economic hurdles and challenges, in terms of workplace injuries or fatalities, as those faced by the first or third (or more) generations of immigrants.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".