MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3192204117 · doi:10.1002/agr.21719

Labor shortages and immigration: The case of the Canadian agriculture sector

2021· article· en· W3192204117 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ibrahim Bousmah, Gilles Grenier

Bibliographic record

VenueAgribusiness · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconLitImmigrationResidenceAgricultureLabour economicsLabor demandEconomicsFood processingEconomic shortagePrimary sector of the economyBusinessAgribusinessDemographic economicsEconomic growthEconomic sectorGeographyPolitical scienceEconomyWage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Reliable access to labor is an ongoing key concern for many employers, in particular for those in regions. As an attempt to help mitigate the effects of labor shortages, immigration has been deployed as a key strategy, but most immigrants are concentrated in large cities. A sector that represents an interesting case in point is the food production sector, which includes primary agriculture and food processing. We use a rich longitudinal micro‐database for the years 2001–2013 from the Canadian Employer‐Employee Dynamic Database to identify the factors that have an impact on the recruitment and retention of Canadian‐born and immigrant workers in the primary agriculture and food processing sectors. In particular, in response to the efforts to explore permanent residence pathways, whether or not immigrants with previous Canadian experience are more likely to stay in the sectors after entering remains a key question for policymakers that we investigate [EconLit Citations: J15, J18, J21, J63, Q10, Q12].

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)0.004
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0150.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgribusinessSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207