MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7068670907

Ability drain

2015· report· en· W7068670907 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCadmus - EUI Research Repository (European University Institute) · 2015
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain drainVettingHuman capitalImmigrationCapital (architecture)Inequality
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain drain effects of migration has been studied extensively. Ability drain has not. While data constraints impede assessments of the extent of ability drain, it is suggestive that immigrants or their children founded over 40% of the Fortune 500 US companies. This paper examines migration’s impact on productive human capital or ‘skill’ as a function of ability and education for source country residents and migrants under a points system that accounts for education (as in Canada pre-2015) and a ‘vetting’ system that also accounts for ability (as in the US H1-B visa program). It concludes that migration results in an ability drain that is larger than the brain drain; is more likely to result in a net skill drain than a net brain drain; that a vetting system is more likely to augment net skill drain; and that inequality in migrants' source countries raises both brain and ability drains.

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.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0010.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.014

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.135 · 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