Immigrant Category of Admission of the Parents and Outcomes of the Children: How far does the Apple Fall?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigrants in many Western countries have experienced poor economic outcomes. This has led to a lack of integration of child immigrants (the 1.5 generation) and the second generation in some countries. However, in Canada, child immigrants and the second generation have on average integrated very well economically. We examine the importance of Canada's entry classes and determine if there is an additional benefit of the selection under the Economic Classes, and in particular the Skilled Workers Class, in terms of the earnings outcomes of the child immigrants (the 1.5 generation). Using administrative data on landing records matched with subsequent income tax records, we are able to identify the entry class of child immigrants, and then consider their economic outcomes in Canada. We find that the superior outcomes of the parents who entered as Skilled Workers extends to the children in terms of approximately 18 to 24 percent higher earnings than those whose parent entered under the Family Class of admission. In addition, we find that this earnings advantage persists (at 7 to 15 percent) even after we control for the education, language ability and detailed country of origin of the person's parent who had been the Principal Applicant.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".