MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7019291034

Explaining the Deprofessionalized Filipino: Why Filipino Immigrants Get Low-Paying Jobs in Toronto

2009· report· en· W7019291034 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2009
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationSubordination (linguistics)Market integrationImmigration policySocial policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Processes of labour market subordination among Filipino immigrants to Canada have been widely observed in recent years, but the reasons for them have usually been assumed to be typical of all immigrant groups. While some processes behind deprofessionalization and mismatched skills in the labour market are indeed generic and experienced by all immigrants arriving with non-Canadian credentials and experience, particular groups experience the labour market in specific ways. In this paper, we seek to provide a nuanced assessment of the factors behind the deprofessionalization of Filipino immigrants in particular, by drawing attention to a mixture of cultural, economic, social and institutional circumstances that shape the experience of this group. We argue that the distinctive labour market integration processes affecting Filipino immigrants requires attention by policy makers, and by implication we also suggest the importance of considering the distinctive labour market experiences of other specific groups. The generic immigrant experience that so often forms the basis of quantitative or institutional assessments of labour market integration should not be assumed to be universally applicable.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYork University Digital Library (York University)→French-language works237,207→