MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789807116 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2017-040

An Analysis of the Patenting Rates of Canada’s Ethnic Populations

2018· article· en· W2789807116 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joël Blit, Mikal Skuterud, Jue Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupImmigrationQuarter (Canadian coin)CensusDemographic economicsCurrent Population SurveyHuman capitalPopulationGeographyAmerican Community SurveyDemographyPolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimate patenting rates for Canada’s ethnic populations between 1986 and 2011, using inventor names to identify ethnicity and Census and National Household Survey ancestry data to estimate ethnic populations. The results reveal higher patenting rates for Canada’s ethnic minorities, particularly for Canadians with Korean, Japanese, and Chinese ancestry, and suggest that immigrants accounted for one-third of Canadian patents in recent years, despite making up less than one-quarter of the adult population. Human capital characteristics, in particular the share with a PhD and the shares educated and employed in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, account for most of the ethnic minority advantage in patenting. Our results also point to larger patenting contributions by foreign-educated compared with Canadian-educated immigrants, which runs counter to current immigrant selection policies favouring international students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207