MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379744247 · doi:10.1111/ijsw.12619

Representation of visible minorities in Canada's public service: Slow but significant progression

2023· article· en· W4379744247 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joyce Opare‐Addo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Welfare · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceRepresentation (politics)Equity (law)ImmigrationPublic servicePopulationDemographic economicsPublic relationsLabour economicsBusinessPublic administrationPolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growthSociologyDemographyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examined the representation of visible minority (VM) employees in Canada's public service to clarify the extent to which Canada's Employment Equity Act (EEA) for diversity and equity management has influenced VM employment outcomes, with a focus on executive (leadership) and professional representation. Data from EEA annual reports (1997–2020) were analysed, and the results for VMs in the public service were juxtaposed with those for VMs in the broader labour market. VM employees' numerical representation under the EEA had increased and was slowly trending upwards in executive roles, exceeding their workforce availability in 2020. However, the representation of VMs in public service failed to match their actual proportion in the larger Canadian population. This group had a stronger representation in scientific and professional occupations, reflecting current immigration policies' support for skilled migration. The VM workforce in the broader labour market lacked equal representation, which indicates significant policy implications.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Social WelfareSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207