MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100090151

2005), Immigration as a labour market strategy: European and North American perspectives, Migration Policy Group

2005· article· en· W7100090151 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationPovertyImmigration policyTotal fertility rateDistribution (mathematics)Fertility
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian immigration policy, the economic outcomes of immigrants, and the economic impact of immigration on the Canadian economy have all changed, frequently quite dramatically, in recent decades. Immigrants now make up about 18 per cent of the resident population, and this percentage is increasing given a relatively low fertility rate and an annual immigration rate of about 0.7 per cent of the population. Following policy changes in 1962 and 1967, the distribution of source countries has shifted dramatically as have many of the characteristics of new immigrants. Whereas, for example, prior to 1960 about 90 per cent of immigrants came from Europe and only 3 per cent came from Asia, in the 1990s only 20 per cent came from Europe and 60 per cent arrived from Asia. Associated with the change in source region, there has been a decrease in English and French language knowledge, and an increase in the frequency of immigrants being members of a visible minority. Unfortunately, recent decades have also seen a very substantial decline in immigrant labour market outcomes and an increase in poverty (formally low income). In 2000, the poverty rate for those who arrived anytime in the 1990s was 35 per cent. Male (female)

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMigration and Labor Dynamics→French-language works237,207→