MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401809582 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v14i1.73284

IMMIGRANT INCOMES AND CREDIT

2021· article· en· W4401809582 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Falconer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationBusinessDemographic economicsEconomicsLabour economicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immigrants to Canada earn more the longer they live here. Their incomes are also influenced by factors including official language fluency, immigration category, and racial discrimination. In this article we address one factor – access to affordable credit. Immigrants consume almost half of their savings in moving to Canada. This can leave little leftover to pay for recertification or licensing fees. Newcomers with professional accreditations earned outside Canada who cannot recertify or become licensed on their arrival often find work that is not commensurate with their training. This is a loss to both immigrants and those born in Canada who might benefit from their skills. Small, low-interest loans, or “microcredit” may be one way to achieve faster certification. The figure on the right shows data from Windmill Microlending, a registered charity providing microloans to immigrants. Red dots represent the income of an immigrant loan recipients (red) and non-recipients (green) measured against their time in Canada. The lines show the average rise in pay for immigrants the longer they live in Canada. On average, loan recipients receive a 26% increase in income following disbursement and a faster rate of increase in income over time.

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)0.000
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 score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsSame topicMigration, Ethnicity, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207