Is There a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.There is a widespread fear in many western nations that ethnic diversity is eroding support for the welfare state. This article examines such fears in the Canadian context. In-depth analysis of public attitudes finds remarkably little tension between ethnic diversity and public support for social programs in Canada. At first glance, then, the country seems to demonstrate the political viability of a multicultural welfare state. But this pattern reflects distinctive features of the institutional context within which public attitudes evolve. The Canadian policy regime has forestalled tension between diversity and redistribution by diverting adjustment pressures from the welfare state, absorbing some of them in other parts of the policy regime, and nurturing a more inclusive form of identity. These institutional buffers are thinning, however, potentially increasing the danger of greater tension between diversity and redistribution in the years to come. Résumé. On craint généralement dans de nombreux pays occidentaux que l'immigration et la diversité ethnique de plus en plus grande soient en train d'éroder l'appui accordé à l'État-providence. Cet article porte sur de telles inquiétudes au sein du Canada. Une analyse approfondie des attitudes du public dévoile qu'il existe remarquablement peu de tension entre la diversité ethnique et l'appui du public à l'endroit des programmes sociaux du Canada. À première vue, le pays semble donc démontrer la viabilité politique d'un État-providence multiculturel. Mais cette tendance reflète les traits distinctifs du contexte institutionnel au sein duquel évoluent les attitudes du public. Le régime de politiques canadiennes fait échec à la tension entre la diversité et la redistribution en soustrayant de l'État-providence diverses pressions d'ajustement et en favorisant une forme d'identité plus inclusive. Certains de ces mécanismes de tampon institutionnels disparaissent progressivement, ce qui peut accroître le danger d'une tension accrue entre la diversité et la redistribution dans les années à venir.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".