BEYOND THE LIBERAL PARTY: IMMIGRANT VOTING BEHAVIOUR IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigrant voters in Canada are generally regarded as preferring the Liberal party above all others. Why this is the case has not yet been adequately determined. Canadian Election Study data from 2000, 2004 and 2006 are combined in order to assess more carefully the factors that drive voting among immigrants. Findings suggest that although immigrants overall tend to vote more Liberal than Canadian-born voters, the pattern is less predictable when immigrant voters are examined according to country of origin. Whereas immigrants from some parts of the world (i.e., non-Europeans) show higher levels of support for the Liberals, immigrants from other parts of the world (e.g., Britain, Northern Europe) are more likely to prefer the Conservatives. This is explained by looking at other mediating factors related to socialization and attitudes. In particular, immigrants who are more likely to vote Liberal generally exhibit lower levels of political knowledge, and are more favourable of policies that would assist racial minorities and provide more foreign aid to developing countries. In other words, immigrants who are more intricately socialized within Canada’s mainstream society are less likely to regard the Liberal party as a default option and more likely to consider other parties.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".