MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Acquisition of Cross-Ethnic Friends by Recent Immigrants in Canada: A Longitudinal Approach

2011· article· en· W1590047490 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Borja Martinović, Frank van Tubergen, Ineke Maas

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Migration Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupImmigrationAffect (linguistics)Demographic economicsSettlement (finance)GeographySociologyPolitical scienceGender studiesBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the development of inter-ethnic friendships between immigrants and Canadians. It uses longitudinal data from three waves of the Canadian LSIC survey, in which newly arrived immigrants were followed during the first 4 years of settlement. It is found that pre-migration characteristics play an important role in the development of inter-ethnic friendships: immigrants who arrive at a younger age and for economic reasons, as well as those who are highly educated and have a cross-ethnic partner at the moment of arrival, establish more inter-ethnic friendships over time. In addition, post-migration characteristics affect the formation of inter-ethnic friendships. Such friendships are more common among immigrants who embrace Canadian traditions and acquire the host-country language, as well as among those who work in international settings and inhabit ethnically mixed neighborhoods. The effects of pre-migration characteristics are partially mediated by post-migration characteristics. Our findings point out that economic, cultural, and spatial integration are all conducive to inter-ethnic friendships.

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)0.002
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations46
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Migration ReviewSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207