The Rise of Temporary Foreign Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay focuses on the “Temporary Foreign Workers” program, and the workers themselves. Temporary foreign workers are perceived as a controversial topic across this nation. The program was established by the Government of Canada to allow Canadian employers to find temporary workers to fill labour shortages. The temporary foreign worker program has recently gained some media attention in regards to how the employers are abusing the program. The program is put into place to allow employers to fill labour shortages when no Canadian citizens are available to occupy certain jobs. However, McDonald’s was hiring temporary workers and taking away jobs from Canadian residents. McDonalds defended their allegations by stating their 4% of their workforce is made up of temporary workers. The rights of temporary workers are also addressed in this essay. Some workers can only work for one specific employer, which could lead them to being taken advantage of. Jason Kenny addresses the abuse of temporary foreign workers by suspending their use in the fast food industry. Kenny made other changes, such as caps on the percent of temporary foreign workers in one workplace. Some employers, such as Dan Kelly, opposed the changes proposed by Jason Kenny as they believed these changes sympathized with unions. Another concern of temporary foreign workers is what occurs to the workers if they lose their jobs. Some of these workers become homeless, are not aware of homeless shelters, and sometimes are not aware of health benefits. There are a lot of issues with this program, and questions regarding why it still exists. The program currently employs over 200,000 temporary workers in Canada which provides the economy with people to fill the labour shortages. Issues surrounding the impact on temporary foreign workers on the economy are also raised in this essay. Overall, temporary foreign workers are needed in Canada, but more control needs to be put on these workers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".