MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4247213754 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14640555.v1

Welcome to Canada? A critical review and assessment of Canada’s fast-changing immigration policies : a literature review

2021· review· en· W4247213754 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lotf Ali Jan Ali

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationImmigration policyRefugeeFamily reunificationPolitical scienceReputationSettlement (finance)State (computer science)Public administrationPolitical economyEconomic growthSociologyBusinessLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since July 1st, 2012, Canada’s immigration system has been undergoing a significant and rapid transformation. This transformation has created a cloud of uncertainty for many prospective immigrants and unpredictability for policy analysts, non-state actors, scholars, and other stakeholders. While family reunification, economic immigration, and asylum for refugees have, in the past, enabled Canada to step up as a global leader, today concerns are growing that recent policy shifts are making Canada less desirable, are unfair to migrants and their families, and are resulting in destruction of its international reputation and long-held leadership in immigrant integration and settlement. The purpose of this paper is to build upon Alboim and Cohl’s Maytree report and review of both proposed and effective immigration policies from between July 2012 and July 2014. It describes some of the major policy amendments and evaluate their potential impact on all involved parties.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0240.036
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.354 · 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
GenreReview

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→