Mobility among regulated professions facing various institutions towards entry to professional practice: From an empirical to a literature-based analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of admission of foreign-trained professionals (FTPs) by a profession’s regulating body reveals much of the profession’s identity and its role in society. It is also an expression of various institutions’ ability to respond to this challenge. Indeed, regulated professions are more and more pushed to open their admission procedures and articulate its process with immigration and complementary training institutions in order to offer a more efficient, transparent and fair entry into professional practice for FTPs in various countries. This presentation will first show how case studies on French professionals in Quebec brought our attention to these processes’ characteristics. This is at first surprising since French immigrants in the selected professions benefit from mutual recognition arrangements (MRAs) between France in Quebec since 2010. Following this empirically-based analysis among 7 regulated professions in Quebec, a literature review on disjuncture or lack of coordination among institutions in these processes leads to questioning regulating bodies’ rules of admission, in the context of transformation of professions through globalization and rising flux of migrating professionals worldwide. When some countries succeed in allowing given categories of FTPs to practices, how can others who don’t allow similar categories of FTPs, not give the impression of protecting themselves? Such questions are bound to be raised within today’s paradigms of mobility (Pellerin, 2011) or hyper-mobility (Hawthorne, 2013). Literature analysis shows that admission of FTPs in regulated professions is a complex issue and “how institutions think” (Douglas, 1986) can contribute to further inertia through disjuncture or coordination problems between institutions.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".