MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050047625 · doi:10.1163/17932548-12341237

Barriers to Social Integration for Chinese Immigrants in Canada, Then and Now: A Comparison

2012· article· en· W2050047625 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yixuan Wang, Li Zong, Hui Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chinese Overseas · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationSocial integrationSubordination (linguistics)ChinaSociologyPolitical scienceDevelopment economicsLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The history of Chinese immigration to Canada can be traced back to more than 150 years. Despite different historical contexts, early Chinese immigrants before/during World War II and recent Chinese immigrants after World War II, especially those since 1960s, have both encountered barriers in the process of social integration in the host country. Using the social exclusion theory, this paper challenges the traditional one-way approach to social integration — which focuses on the immigrants’ personal efforts in adapting to a new social environment — and instead, advocates a two-way approach to analyze Chinese immigrants’ social integration into the host country in the early and more recent times. By making comparisons between them in different social contexts, it is found that the difficulties in social integration are attributable to both the individual and structural barriers rather than personal insufficiency alone. Moreover, despite different manifestations at different times, the nature of and reasons for social exclusion remain the same. The underlying reason for domination-subordination relationship between the excluder and the excluded in different times is attributable to the self interests of the excluders.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chinese OverseasSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207