Panethnicity and Ethnic Resources in Residential Integration: A Comparative Study of Two Host Societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The racial and ethnic structure of a host society as well as its institutional and ideological context of integration shape the ethnic integration process. To examine these forces for residential integration, this study compares three panethnic groups in Canada and the United States using tabular data from the 2001 Canadian and the 2000 US censuses. Two ways in which the social context is important are identified. First, the social context affects how groups are distributed across urban neighbourhoods. As expected, being a Black ethnic group meant being less segregated in Canada than in the US but Asian groups were more segregated, controlling for group characteristics and the urban and regional context. White ethnic groups in both countries were similarly segregated. Second, the social context influences the process of incorporation itself. The effect of ethnic resources, in terms of acculturation and socioeconomic status, was dependent on the group and host society. The results demonstrate that the national context plays a significant role in the way panethnic group membership influences the spatial processes of ethnic groups in the urban neighbourhoods of the two host societies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".