MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395042392 · doi:10.1177/0002716215594630

Cross-Nativity Partnering and the Political Participation of Immigrant Generations

2015· article· en· W2395042392 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mónica Boyd, Amanda Couture‐Carron

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationPoliticsForeign bornVotingSocioeconomic statusFederal electionDemographic economicsNative-BornPolitical scienceVoting behaviorDemographyEconomic growthSociologyEconomicsPopulationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article defines cross-nativity intermarriage in four generations of Canadians and explores whether cross-nativity partnering is associated with political assimilation—in this case, similarity in voting and political activities between immigrants with native-born partners and third-plus-generation immigrants. We find that foreign-born residents with Canadian-born partners do not differ from third-plus-generation residents who have Canadian-born partners in their propensities to vote or in the number of political activities in which they participate. Conversely, the foreign-born with foreign-born partners are less likely than the third-plus generation to have voted in a previous federal election; if the foreign-born immigrated later in adolescence or in adulthood, they also are less likely to participate in other political activities. Differences in demographic and socioeconomic characteristics underlie the greater likelihood that second and third-plus generations will engage in political activities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.024
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.224
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social ScienceSame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207