MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978691271 · doi:10.1093/jeg/lbz029

Can skilled immigration raise innovation? Evidence from Canadian Cities

2019· article· en· W2978691271 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Geography · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsImmigrationPanacea (medicine)Per capitaDemographic economicsImmigration policyPopulationEconomicsLabour economicsPolitical scienceSociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examine the effect of changes in skilled-immigrant population shares in 98 Canadian cities on per capita patents. The Canadian case is of interest because its ‘points system’ is viewed as a model of skilled immigration policy. Our estimates suggest that the impact of increasing the university-educated immigrant share on patenting rates is modest at best and unambiguously smaller than the impact of skilled immigrants in the USA. We find larger effects of Canadian science, engineering, technology or mathematics (STEM)-educated immigrants employed in STEM jobs, but this impact is limited because only one-third of Canadian STEM-educated immigrants are employed in STEM jobs, compared with two-fifths of native-born Canadians and one-half of US immigrants. Our findings suggest that for most countries, skilled immigration is unlikely to be a panacea for sluggish innovation and that the US experience may be exceptional.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · 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