Individual- and Community-level Determinants of Support for Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Canada*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine, chez les particuliers et dans la collectivité, des déterminants d'appui à l'endroit de 1'immigration et de la diversité culturelle. L'analyse teste, au niveau des particuliers, des hypothèses inspirées par la théorie des ressources limitées, celle du contact et celle du progressisme liéà l'instruction; au niveau de la collectivité, elle tient compte des effets d'un certain nombre de variables. Rien n'étaie la théorie du contact ni celle des ressources limitées; en revanche, conformément à la théorie du progressisme liéà l'instruction, les Albertains plus instruits des villes s'avérent plus favorables à la diversité culturelle. This paper examines individual- and community-level determinants of support for immigration and cultural diversity. The analysis tests individual-level hypotheses derived from scarce resources, contact and educational progressivism theories, and also considers the effects of a number of community-level variables. No support is found for contact or scarce resources theory but, in line with educational progressivism theory, more educated urban Albertans are shown to be more supportive of cultural diversity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".