MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4235713240 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14646117

Remaining Competitive in the Global Economy Through Temporary Migrant Labour? One "Short-term" Step Forward and two "Long-term" Steps Backward in Canadian Immigration

2021· preprint· en· W4235713240 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick M. Sullivan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationTerm (time)Scope (computer science)Equity (law)PhenomenonLabour economicsEconomicsImmigration policyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last 10 years, the creation and expansion of the Low Skill Pilot Project (LSPP) has substantially increased the scope of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, ultimately eclipsing permanent immigration into Canada. The consequences, while positive for employers in the short-term, are perverse for Canada’s principles of social justice and equity in the long-term. It is also not clear whether the Project serves Canada’s immigration goals and national interests in the long term. This paper examines the LSPP’s creation and development, and analyzes short and long-term implications for Canadian society and the “Canada brand” of immigration, which refers to Canada’s image as a “destination of choice” for would-be immigrants the world over. This paper draws attention to the dichotomy of labour rights, wages and benefits of skilled and unskilled temporary foreign workers. A juxtaposition of two foreign worker categories within a dual labour segmentation framework illustrates this phenomenon.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.016
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→