Bibliographic record
Abstract
For nearly forty years, Québec has been taking action in the area of immigration in order to, among other reasons, ensure the longterm survival of its distinct character. As a Francophone society in North America, in the early 1990s, it adopted an immigration and integration policy that recognizes the importance of immigration as an instrument for social, cultural and economic development and that advocates a model of integration. This model emphasizes a responsibility to be shared between, on the one hand, the newcomer and, on the other hand, the host society. The responsibilities of arriving immigrants consist in adjusting to their new living environment and adopting the fundamental values of a modern Québec— including respect of the law, individual rights and pluralism—, and contributing to the longterm survival of the French language in Québec. For the host society, this means recognition of the status of citizen, whether at the symbolic and effective level of participation in society or at the legal level of nationality. This also means that the host society is open to the cultural and religious diversity of its new citizens, it guarantees the exercise of their rights and supports them in their effort to integrate. This support takes the form of services and measures that range from information to assist future immigrants in embarking on the integration process from abroad to actions aimed at their full participation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.004 |
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".