Assimilation, Cultural Pluralism, and Social Exclusion among Ethnocultural Groups in Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we use custom tabulations from the 1991 Census for Greater Vancouver to compare the settlement experience of "traditional" immigrants with ethnic origins in Europe vs. those from other parts of the world. In particular we analyze the extent to which assimilation or cultural pluralism best describe the experience of the two populations. Assimilation is measured according to the degree to which an ethnic group moves toward the characteristics of the native-born population, while cultural pluralism is assessed from profiles of residential concentration, employment segmentation, nonofficial language use in the home, and ethnic inmarriage. We also assess the extent to which assimilation or cultural pluralism is associated with social exclusion in terms of economic and educational achievement. In general we find that assimilation best describes the experience of both groupings, though it is much slower for non-European immigrants and ethnicities, where cultural pluralism survives appreciably beyond the first generation. Cultural pluralism is associated with economic marginality for both groups in their first decade in Canada, though more profoundly for non-European immigrants in terms of personal income. In contrast there is some evidence that for the European-origin native-born, some ethnic separation remains and is associated with economic privilege. In general with length of residence, the relationship between variables becomes more ordered, and education emerges as a structuring effect in shaping economic outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".