Cited by 5Labor market dynamics and wage inequalityEthics and Social Impacts of AIDigital Economy and Work Transformation

Machine learning and the labor market: A portrait of occupational and worker inequities in Canada

Open access
Jetha, Arif, Liao, Qing, Shahidi, Faraz Vahid, Vu, Viet, Biswas, Aviroop, Smith, Brendan, Smith, Peter·2025·Social Science & Medicine

Abstract

Introduction Machine learning (ML), an artificial intelligence (AI) subfield, is increasingly used by Canadian workplaces. Concerningly, the impact of ML may be inequitable and contribute to social and health inequities in the working population. The aim of this study is to estimate the number of workers in occupations with high, medium, and low ML exposure and describe differences in exposure according to occupational and worker sociodemographic factors. Methods Canadian occupations were scored according to the extent to which they were made up of job tasks that could be performed by ML. Eight years of data from Canada's Labour Force Survey were pooled and the number of Canadians in occupations with high, medium, or low exposure to ML were estimated. The relationship between hourly wages, educational attainment, and job skill, training and experience requirements, and ML exposure was examined using multinomial models that were stratified by gender. Results Approximately 5.7 million Canadians are working in occupations characterized by high ML exposure. Women workers and workers with a college or bachelor's degree and in occupations with lower job skills requirements made up a greater proportion of workers in occupations with high ML exposure. Multinomial models indicated gender differences in the relationship between independent variables and ML exposure. Among men, higher educational attainment and hourly wages were associated with high occupational ML exposure. However, am…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118295

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jetha, A., Liao, Q., Shahidi, F. V., Vu, V., Biswas, A., Smith, B., & Smith, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Institute for Work & Health (CA)
Corresponding author
Jetha, Arif
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-09
Volume
381
Pages
118295
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4411150360
Cited by
3
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Government of Canada Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (890-2021-0018, Future Skills Centre)
  • Arthritis Society
  • Institute for Work and Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
Keywords
artificial intelligence in the workplace, gender differences, women's employment, educational attainment, hourly wages, job skill requirements, labor market
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adult, Canada, Educational Status, Employment, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Occupations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Salaries and Fringe Benefits

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review