Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006 PUMF Canadian census data to evaluate how long it might take to the earnings of new immigrant’s men to catch up the earnings of their comparable Canadian-born men, based on the log-earning model from David E. Bloom, Gilles Grenier, and Morley Gunderson (“The changing Labour Market Position of Canadian Immigrants”, The Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 28, No. 4b, 987-1005, 1995) when controlling for region effects. The results suggest that the estimate of years to equality and their respective confidence interval are roughly higher in the Bloom et al. (1995) model than the new ones which included region variables; after controlling for entry, assimilation and cohort effects. It will take in average forty-four years to the earnings of new immigrant’s men to catch up the earnings of their comparable Canadian-born, after controlling for cohort effects in the pooled sample data. The estimate and confidence interval of years to equality are also given for different regions across sectional and pooled data. The results suggest a large variation and differences of these estimates across regions and different cohorts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".