MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7000005830

Discrimination à l'embauche des immigrants qualifiés: impact des normes formelles et informelles

2016· other· en· W7000005830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)ImmigrationNorm (philosophy)InequalityLabour lawAge discrimination
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skilled immigrants must pass through a competitive selection process to immigrate to Canada. Despite this, they still have difficulties finding jobs that match their skills. This paradox is mainly due to hiring discrimination. We will first explore the role that anti-discrimination law plays in attempting to resolve this problem. The demonstration of its limits will lead us to look at how hiring discrimination persists. We will argue that the informal Canadian worker norm influences some employers to refuse to hire skilled immigrants. We will finish by arguing that, due to the limitations in formal law and the obstacles created by informal norms, the workplace integration burden needs to shift from the immigrants to the employers through a change in employers' organizational culture. Since employment equity plans have been created to do this, we will study their possibilities and limits. This study will bring to light a number of limitations of formal anti-discrimination laws, concerning the complaints system and the employment equity plans. This thesis highlights structural inequalities in the working world by showing how formal and informal norms impact the main workplace actors, namely employers and potential employees.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→French-language works237,207→