MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376135592 · doi:10.1111/imig.13152

Probationary precarity? Differential inclusion among <scp>post‐graduation</scp> work permit‐holders in Canada

2023· article· en· W4376135592 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Leah F. Vosko

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Migration · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPrecarityGraduation (instrument)ImmigrationInclusion (mineral)DoorsWork (physics)Career PathwaysPolitical sciencePublic relationsBusinessDemographic economicsEconomic growthSociologyMedical educationMedicineEconomicsLawEngineeringGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In high‐income receiving states, educational visa‐holders are routinely cast as beneficiaries of immigration systems prioritizing well‐trained workers. Promising pathways to permanent residency, Canada's Post‐Graduation Work Permit Program (PGWPP), an expanding stream of its new International Mobility Program, is a case in point. Yet there is a dearth of scholarly analysis of program design and its effects on visa‐holders. Addressing this lacuna, this article examines the PGWPP through a multi‐method approach focusing on the interface between program requirements, distinctions between doors of entry with attention to criteria for accessing permanent residency, country of origin, and gender. Underlining the porosity of entry categories, contributing to multiple doors through which educational migrants must pass to secure permanent residency, it reveals that PGWP‐holders experience “probationary precarity” – a concept devised to capture labour market insecurities permit‐holders endure.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.004
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational MigrationSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207