Critical examination of the recent changes to the point system and Canadian employers' assessment practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent changes to the Canadian Point System in relation to the Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP) have greatly impacted the types of applicants that will be admitted to Canada. Through a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), it is my intention to explore the hiring practices of some Canadian employers and how immigrants currently fare in the labour market. A CDA will also be conducted based on the adjustments to the point distribution of specific selection factors for the FSWP. Because the most recent changes to the Point System were made in May 2013, this MRP will be one of the first if not the first to critically assess the May 4, 2013 changes to the Point System from a rights-based perspective. I will also explore whether or not the Government takes responsibility for helping immigrants facing discrimination in the labour market. Finally, I will investigate whether the adjustments to the Point System reinforces and legitimates the discriminatory practices of some Canadian employers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".