MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046455153

The Improved Labour Market Performance of New Immigrants to Canada, 2006-2019

2020· article· en· W3046455153 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kimberly Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueCSLS Research Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationUnemploymentDemographic economicsEconomicsLabour economicsUnemployment rateGeographyEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report provides a descriptive analysis of the labour market outcomes of new immigrants to Canada from 2006 to 2019. Using data from the Labour Force Survey, it focuses on four labour market indicators: participation, unemployment, and employment rates, as well as average hourly wages. It compares trends in labour market outcomes among very recent immigrants (5 years or less since immigration), recent immigrants (5-10 years since immigration), and Canadian-born workers. This report finds that new immigrants are on average younger and better educated than the Canadian-born. As a result, their labour force participation and employment rates were comparable to, if not better than, those of the Canadian-born. However, the unemployment rates of new immigrants were higher, and average hourly wages were lower. Over the 2006 to 2019 period, very recent immigrants enjoyed an absolute and relative improvement in all four indicators. Recent immigrants enjoyed an improvement in all four absolute indicators and three of four relative indicators; relative hourly wages were the exception.

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)0.002
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCSLS Research ReportsSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207