Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada (LSIC) is used to examine how immigrants in the 2000-2001 landing cohort subjectively assess their life in Canada. The paper provides a useful complement to other studies of immigrant outcomes that often focus on employment, income or health. Four years after landing, about three-quarters of LSIC respondents said they were satisfied or very satisfied with their life in Canada, and a comparable proportion said their expectations of life in Canada had been met or exceeded. Nearly 9 out of 10 said that, if given the chance, they would make the same decision again to come to Canada. A broad range of demographic, social and economic characteristics are associated with subjective assessments. Positive assessments of life in Canada are less prevalent among individuals in their thirties and forties, and university graduates and principal applicants in the skilled worker admission category, than they are among other groups. While assessments of life in Canada are correlated with economic factors such as personal income, they are also correlated with social factors such as relationships with neighbours and perceptions of discrimination.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".