MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993832905

Classification of Canadian immigrants into visible minority groups using country of birth and mother tongue.

2013· article· en· W2993832905 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohammad R. Rezai, Laura C. Maclagan, Linda R. Donovan, Jack V. Tu

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEthnic groupImmigrationDemographyLatin AmericansFirst languageChinese americansCitizenshipConfidence intervalGeographyPoliticsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Permanent Resident Database of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) contains sociodemographic information on immigrants but lacks ethnic group classifications. To enhance its usability for ethnicityrelated research, we categorized immigrants in the CIC database into one of Canada's official visible minority groups or a white category using their country of birth and mother tongue. METHODS: Using public data sources, we classified each of 267 country names and 245 mother tongues in the CIC data into 1 of 10 visible minority groups (South Asian, Chinese, black, Latin American, Filipino, West Asian, Arab, Southeast Asian, Korean, and Japanese) or a white group. We then used country of birth alone (method A) or country of birth plus mother tongue (method B) to classify 2.5 million people in the CIC database who immigrated to Ontario between 1985 and 2010 and who had a valid encrypted health card number. We validated the ethnic categorizations using linked selfreported ethnicity data for 6499 people who responded to the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). RESULTS: Among immigrants listed in the CIC database, the 4 most frequent visible minority groups as classified by method B were South Asian (n = 582 812), Chinese (n = 400 771), black (n = 254 189), and Latin American (n = 179 118). Methods A and B agreed in 94% of the categorizations (kappa coefficient 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-0.94). Both methods A and B agreed with self-reported CCHS ethnicity in 86% of all categorizations (for both comparisons, kappa coefficient 0.83, 95% CI 0.82-0.84). Both methods A and B had high sensitivity and specificity for most visible minority groups when validated using self-reported ethnicity from the CCHS (e.g., with method B, sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 0.85 and 0.97 for South Asians, 0.93 and 0.99 for Chinese, and 0.90 and 0.97 for blacks). INTERPRETATION: The use of country of birth and mother tongue is a validated and practical method for classifying immigrants to Canada into ethnic categories.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207