MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391092323 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2023-005

The High Costs of Caring: Measuring the Prevalence and Consequences of Birth-Related Career Interruptions for Immigrant Care Workers in Canada

2024· article· fr· W4391092323 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Naomi Lightman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImmigrationMedicineFamily medicineNursingEnvironmental healthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent article examine la question de la prévalence et des conséquences du retrait du marché du travail du personnel immigrant des soins à autrui au Canada après la naissance d’un enfant. Les analyses ont été menées principalement à partir des données issues de la Base de données longitudinales sur les immigrants (BDIM) de 2009-2018, en comparant un échantillon de personnes immigrantes entrées au Canada par le biais du Programme des aides familiaux résidants/Programme des aides familiaux (PAFR) avec celui des personnes qui sont arrivées dans le cadre des programmes économiques ou au titre de la catégorie du regroupement familial. Les résultats démontrent que les immigrantes PAFR étaient les plus susceptibles d’avoir subi une interruption de carrière liée à la naissance d’un enfant au cours de cette période et qu’elles avaient en moyenne des réductions de revenu beaucoup plus grandes après l’interruption, malgré la pénurie actuelle dans le secteur des soins à autrui. L’article se termine par une discussion sur les changements potentiels de la politique fédérale visant remédier aux disparités existantes.

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)0.008
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207