Internal Migration Dynamics of a Canadian Immigrant Gateway: Toronto as an Origin, Way-Station and Destination between 1991 and 2001 */la Dynamique De la Migration Interne D'une Porte D'entree Canadienne : Toronto En Tant Qu'origine, Etape et Destination Entre 1991 et 2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstracts Immigration in Canada is an increasingly urban trend, with immigrants concentrating in the metropolitan gateway cities of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. While Toronto's role as an immigrant magnet is well known, its inter-relationship with other areas through the exchange of immigrants is less known and understood. That is, what role does Toronto play as a centre of immigration exchange as a way-station (or intermediary), origin, and destination? Using data drawn from the 1996 and 2001 Canadian Census Master Files, the purpose of this paper is to evaluate the internal migration dynamics of Canada's immigrant population with Toronto as a focal point between 1991 and 2001. Resumes >. L'immigration au Canada est un phenomene de plus en plus urbain, avec des immigrants se concentrant de plus en plus dans les villes > metropolitaine de Toronto, Vancouver et Montreal. Bien que le role de Toronto en tant qu'attraction pour les immigrants soit bien connu, ses rapports avec les autres regions en termes d'echanges d'immigrants sont moins bien connus et compris. Ainsi, quel role est-ce que Toronto joue en tant comme un centre d'echange d'immigrants en tant que destination intermediaire, origine ou destination finale ? En utilisant des donnees provenant du Recensement du Canada de 1996 et 2001, l'objectif de cet article est d'evaluer la dynamique de migration interne de la population immigrante du Canada avec Toronto comme cible entre 1991 et 2001. Trois types de flux migratoires internes sont analyses : les migrations d'etape de quatre ans et d'un an, afin de donner une analyse plus fine de la migration interne differenciee selon des differentes periodes temporelles. En gros, les resultats suggerent que Toronto fonctionne comme un centre de redistribution des immigrants. Les echanges de migrants sont typiquement soit avec d'autres centres d'immigration tells que Vancouver ou Montreal, ou avec des regions metropolitaines avoisinantes proche de Toronto telles qu'Oshawa ou Hamilton. etant donne le role que joue Toronto dans le systeme de localisation des immigrants au Canada, il n'y a peu de donnees qui suggerent que les petits centres beneficient d'une redistribution de population a partir de cette metropole. Introduction (1) Immigration in Canada is an increasingly urban trend: of immigrants arriving between 1991 and 2001, 94 % resided in a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) as compared to 59 % of the Canadian-born population (Schellenberg 2004). These new immigrant arrivals predominately concentrate in the metropolitan gateway cities of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. In 2002, 49 % of newly arrived immigrants settled in Toronto, followed by Montreal and Vancouver respectively, with 14 and 13 % (CIC 2003). While Toronto has traditionally been a major immigrant gateway into Canada, the proportion of immigrants residing in Toronto has increased, with 37.3 % of all immigrants living in Toronto in 2001, compared to just 29.7 % in 1981 (Hou 2005) and aided by the addition of more than 445,000 immigrants between 1996 and 2001 alone (McIssac 2003). With 43.7 % of its population foreign-born, Toronto has the largest immigrant concentration in Canada and one of the largest in the world (McIssac 2003). In comparison, metropolitan areas in the United States such as Miami (40 %), Los Angeles (31%) and New York (24 %), and worldwide, such as Sydney (31%) have smaller foreign-born concentrations (McIssac 2003). The immigrant phenomenon in Toronto is not only limited to first generation immigrants, with 22 % of Toronto's population in 2001 being second generation immigrants, defined as individuals with at least one parent born outside Canada (Schellenberg 2004). As Canada faces an aging population coupled with low fertility rates, immigrants have increasingly been tapped as a source of labour force growth. …
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".