“The School of Life”: Differences in U.S. and Canadian Settlement Policies and Their Effect on Individual Haitian Immigrants’ Language Learning
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
A growing body of literature suggests that language proficiency in the main language of the destination country is one of the most significant factors in the integration of immigrants. This study examines the overall differences in U.S. and Canadian settlement policy, using the provision of language courses as a specific example of the ways in which adult immigrants are integrated into the host society. Eleven Haitian women in both countries were interviewed to compare the way in which participants accessed key settlement information and services. The findings reveal that Canadian‐based participants were much more likely to cite professional institutions (“formal facilitators”) for referrals, whereas U.S.‐based participants were more likely to learn from “informal facilitators.” The findings also highlight differences in access and completion rates of language classes. Implications for how national settlement policy affects individual immigrants and their language acquisition are analyzed in the discussion.
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