Trust or betrayal: immigrant engineers’ employment-seeking experiences in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While trust has been empirically studied and emically defined in a number of studies of employment-seeking practices among second/additional language speakers, particularly in the context of gatekeeping encounters1 (for example, Kerekes 2006; Campbell & Roberts 2007), it is generally presented as important from the point of view of the (prospective) employer. It is the job seeker's/employee's responsibility to make a positive impression on the job interviewer or employment supervisor, in great part by proving her/himself to be trustworthy. Far less research has examined the job seeker's/ employee's trust: what role does a job seeker's or employee's (dis)trust in her/his (prospective) work environment play in the employment experience, and why might this be important? In the case of internationally educated professionals, the majority of whom speak a second or additional language in their employment environment, how do their experiences with work culture in their country of immigration affect their (dis)trust of local professionals in their employment (-seeking) experiences?
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".