MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7098006301

WORK-LIFE FLEXIBILITY BENEFITS AND INVOLUNTARY TURNOVER AMONG IMMIGRANT WORKERS

2016· article· en· W7098006301 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationUnemploymentUnderemploymentFlexibility (engineering)WorkforceAcculturationRelocationResidenceEarnings
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study of 8221 Canadian workers finds that access to work-life flexibility benefits reduces involuntary turnover for immigrant women and men. The beneficial effect of using work-life flexibility benefits is attenuated, however, for immigrant women who have relatively low levels of acculturation to Canadian society. Immigrants represent 20 % of the Canadian workforce and 70 % of national labour force growth (Zietsma, 2006). Despite immigrants ’ strong representation in the workforce, there is extensive documentation of struggles with unemployment and underemployment. Very recent arrivals to Canada, meaning people who have arrived within the last 5 years, have unemployment rates nearly double those of the general population. Recent immigrants who have been in Canada for between 5 and 10 years show higher unemployment than domestic Canadians but lower unemployment than very recent immigrants. Some ethnic groups, such as very recent African born immigrants, experience unemployment rates as high as 20.8 % (Gilmore, 2007). Immigrant women are more likely to be unemployed then either immigrant men or Canadian born women. Underemployment and immigrant skill discounting are well documented phenomena (Krahn et al,

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)0.003
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 score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 topicMigration and Labor Dynamics→French-language works237,207→