Australia’s superior skilled migration outcomes compared with Canada’s
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Australia and Canada are global exemplars of skilled migration policy, designed to have important effects on economic growth. This article assesses the development and outcomes of their permanent migration programmes for a range of regulated professions. We compare the matched census data from both countries in 2016 and then examine the key drivers of the major differences found through qualitative interviews. Although the trends in numbers and source countries and characteristics of skilled migrants are similar, their earnings relative to equivalent native‐born earnings are far lower in Canada than in Australia. This reflects the Australian government's greater power to initiate and drive policy reform agendas, early strategies designed to enhance foreign credential recognition and a heightened role for employers including through two‐step migration. Canada has recently announced significantly expanded migration intakes. These seem unlikely to lead to strong economic growth, unless entry requirements are tightened and more targeted support provided.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it