MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898730963

The Contribution of Métis To Future Labour Force Growth In Canada

2017· article· en· W2898730963 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Sharpe, Myeongwan Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueCSLS Research Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetisEthnic groupPopulationGeographyDemographyDemographic economicsPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report contributes to the debate on the role of Aboriginal people in the Canadian long-term economic growth by projecting the contribution of Metis people to future labour force growth in Canada as a whole and across regions under various projection scenarios. Based on our projections for the Metis labour force over the period 2011-2036, we find that the contribution of Metis to the total Canadian labour force is significant given their 1.2 per cent share in the total working age population in Canada. In our baseline scenario, the Metis people is projected to account for 6.4 per cent of total labour force growth. The Metis contribution is especially large in the regions with which the Metis has historical ties: namely the Prairie provinces and the Northern region. The contribution in these jurisdictions ranges from 11.8 per cent to 17.0 per cent. We find that the role of ethnic mobility is especially important for the Metis population growth. If we assume no ethnic mobility, the Metis contribution is projected to be 1.9 per cent of the total labour force growth in Canada. Nevertheless, this is still greater than the Metis share in the Canadian working age population in 2011.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.395 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCSLS Research ReportsSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207