The Temporary Foreign Worker Program in Alberta: Exploring the Key Determinants of Public Opinion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores public opinion regarding the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) program in Canada. It is situated within an important moment in the program’s history, in a province with particularly widespread reliance on it. Utilizing the 2013 Alberta Survey – a province-wide telephone survey – I explore Albertans’ opinions regarding the TFW program. This analysis is framed with an overview of the expansion of the TFW program over the past several decades, a description of the extensive media coverage given to several prominent examples of misuse of the program in 2013, and the resulting changes to the program. Compared to results from prior nation-wide surveys, the 2013 findings demonstrate that the majority of Albertans believe the TFW program is necessary. Furthermore, the vast majority of Albertans believe TFWs should have the same workplace rights as Canadians, and a majority believe that TFWs should be able to access permanent residency. These findings highlight points where TFW program policy was disconnected from public opinion, particularly with regard to allowing differential pay and permanent residency rights of TFWs. In addition, the 2013 survey findings illustrate some similarities with findings from the broader literature regarding the key determinants of attitudes towards immigration. In sum, this research makes a significant contribution to the limited literature exploring public opinion regarding the TFW program in Canada. It provides an in-depth analysis of Albertans’ opinions regarding the TFW program and the key factors that shape these opinions, and also insights into the connection between public opinion and public policy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".