Gender, Religion, and Ethnicity: Intersections and Boundaries in Immigrant Integration Policy Making
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 this paper, we analyze Dutch policy debates that focused on the development of a distinct program to advance the social and economic participation of ethnic minority women (where this label captures immigrant women from non-Western countries). Drawing on intersectional analysis and theories of ethnic boundary formation, we argue that the parliamentary debates surrounding this policy program framed the social problems of these women to effectively reduce a diverse range of ethnic minority women into a narrowly defined group of Muslim women. Referencing multiple axes of difference, the adopted policies encouraged women to overcome ethnic distinctions and gender inequality by abandoning their (imputed) religious practices. Parliamentary debates on these policies generated bright boundaries and assimilationist approaches to the integration of ethnic minority women. In our conclusion, we suggest how our framework might be applied to inform analyses of integration policy making and boundary construction in other countries.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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