MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124139283

Moving Parts: Immigration Policy, Internal Migration and Natural resource Shocks

2016· article· en· W3124139283 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationGovernment (linguistics)Immigration policyUnintended consequencesBusinessLabour economicsEnforcementBacklashCompetition (biology)EconomicsPolitical scienceEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian government made major changes in 2014 to both the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) Program and the permanent economic immigration system. Under the previous system and its enforcement, temporary foreign workers were in competition with some Canadian residents, resulting in a major political backlash. In addition, permanent immigrants to Canada were not generally moving to locations with the strongest demand for jobs. The federal changes to the TFW Program limited the kinds of workers companies could bring in, made the applications more rigorous, and set an employer-specific cap on the use of TFWs. These changes will lead to a decrease in the number of TFWs working in Canada. In the permanent immigration system, the government modified the traditional points system and created the Express Entry System. International applicants must meet a threshold of points before the government will invite them to apply for immigration. The system is skewed toward labour-market demand. It rewards workers who have skills that the federal government determines the labour market needs. It also rewards permanent immigrants who have a Canadian job offer. We expect that the changes to the permanent immigration system will have many positive results. Immigrants will have better skills and improved job-market outcomes, and they will meet employer needs more closely than permanent immigrants did in the past. Likewise, recent changes to the TFW Program will improve the labour market for existing residents. However, the changes in the immigration system may have some unintended consequences. First, they make it difficult for international students at Canadian universities to become permanent residents. Further, whereas TFWs were the main source of labour-market competition for Canadian residents until 2014, new permanent immigrants will increasingly compete with Canadian residents. This change will have profound implications for interprovincial migration. Lastly, the permanent immigration policy prioritizes skills currently in demand, and that preference may decrease the immigration of workers whose skills may be more important in the longer term. Although, on the whole, the recent changes are an improvement to Canadian immigration policy, the federal government should consider addressing these potential negative consequences as it moves forward with its reforms. Those refinements would entail: • better incorporating recent international graduates of Canadian universities into the permanent immigration system; • creating more permanent immigration opportunities for immigrants with skills the Canadian economy may need in the future, although they are not in demand in today’s labour market; and • addressing the concern that permanent international immigrants will reduce the incentive for Canadian residents to move among the provinces to seek better opportunities. All things considered, in terms of substituting for existing Canadian workers, we argue that the new immigration system will make TFWs less attractive and permanent immigrants more competitive.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.270 · 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