MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413580704 · doi:10.12789/geocanj.2025.52.222

Recent Labour and Education Trends Regarding Geoscientists and Geological Engineers in Canada

2025· article· en· W4413580704 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
D Lebel, Rob Raeside, Katherine Boggs, Paul Hubley

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscience Canada · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsKingston Process Metallurgy (Canada)Mount Royal UniversityAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyMining engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review of information from Statistics Canada and the Council of Chairs of Canadian Earth Science Departments examined the geoscience workforce in Canada over the last two decades through economic cycles and environmental transitions. After a period of growth in Canada (2006 to 2011), geoscientist numbers in the labour market declined by 11% from 2011 to 2021, whereas the numbers of geological engineers grew by 56%. The combined total for both classifications remained fairly constant. By Census 2021 Canada had about 11,000 geoscientists (including oceanographers) and about 4,000 geological engineers. Professional, scientific and technical services, mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction are the major employment sectors. Employment for geoscientists is cyclical and tied to economic and commodity-price cycles. Alberta experienced the largest decline in geoscientist numbers (-34.5%), correlated with reduced oil- and gas-development investments from 2014 to 2020. Growth in other provinces (e.g. British Columbia, Ontario) partly offset the decline in Alberta. Nearly 30% of geoscientists are immigrants, as defined by their countries of birth. The university education supply pipeline shows that enrolment in core geoscience and geological engineering undergraduate programs dropped significantly (50% decline from 2015 to 2022) with a corresponding drop in graduations. However, enrolments in Earth Science programs related to aspects beyond core geoscience and geological engineering (e.g. environmental science in its broadest sense) tripled between 2007 and 2022. If these trends continue, the majority of students will be enrolled in these associated programs rather than graduating with core geoscience knowledge and skills. There is a need for more comprehensive and up-to-date data to represent the characteristics of the geoscience workforce accurately and to inform policy decisions and individual career choices. The current situation implies that shortages of qualified geoscience professionals could develop in future years.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscience CanadaSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207