Comparing Immigrant Integration in North America and Western Europe: How much do the Grand Narratives Tell Us?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In comparing different countries, studies often seek to account for the success of immigrant integration, or lack of it, in a small number of “grand ideas,” such as nationally specific “models” of integration, which attempt to provide overarching explanations for cross-national differences and similarities. This article evaluates five grand ideas in light of our study examining how four European (Britain, France, Germany, and the Netherlands) and two North American (U.S., Canada) countries are meeting the challenges of integrating immigrants and their second-generation children across a variety of domains from the labor market, to the educational system, to the polity. We conclude that while some of the grand ideas help to illuminate patterns of integration in particular domains, none provides a sufficiently encompassing explanation – and each has significant failings. Moreover, none of these ideas highlights all of the features that we argue are critical, although these do not boil down to one “grand narrative.” These features are the characteristics or qualities that immigrants bring with them when they move to Europe or North America; demographic and other social and economic trends there; and, perhaps most important, historically rooted social, political, and economic institutions in each receiving society that create barriers as well as bridges to integration and inclusion.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it