Spatial Residential Patterns of Selected Ethnic Groups: Significance and Policy Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT/RESUME This paper analyses the spatial residential patterns of recent immigrant groups to Canada and compares them with other selected European groups to understand the differences, their causes and consequences. Using census data from the 2001 Canadian Census for the metropolitan areas and census tracts, various measures of concentration and segregation are examined. Preliminary analysis of the data show that substantial differences exist among the ethnic groups in their residential patterns. The differences seem to be along not only social class lines but also along social distance and ethnic cohesion dimensions. There does not seem to be much change in the last decade. The paper further explores whether the extent of residential segregation decreases in later generations. The persistence of ethnic enclaves over time has important policy implicatior On the positive side, they are important in preserving aspects of the ethnic culture such as language, customs, religious beliefs, lifestyle, etc. They emphasize the cultural diversity of Canada. On the negative side, they may promote discrimination and prejudice and the development of ghettoes. Ce document de recherche analyse les habitudes en matiere de residence, sur le plan spatial, des groupes ayant immigres recemment au Canada en les comparant a celles de certains groupes d'Europeens en vue de comprendre les differences, ainsi que leurs causes et leurs consequences. Les donnees du recensement de 2001 sur les regions metropolitaines et les secteurs de recensement sont mises a profit, et diverses mesures de concentration et de segregation sont examinees. L'analyse preliminaire des donnees indique qu'il existe des differences notables entre les groupes ethniques pour ce qui est de leurs habitudes en matiere de residence. Les differences semblent correspondre non seulement aux classes sociales, mais egalement a la distance sociale et a la cohesion ethnique. Il ne semble pas y avoir eu beaucoup de differences au cours de la derniere decennie. L'etude cherche a demontrer si la segregation residentielle diminue avec les generations de residence au Canada. La persistance d'enclaves ethniques au fil du temps a des incidences importantes sur les politiques. D' une part, elles sont importantes pour la preservation de la culture ethnique, par exemple la langue, les coutames, les croyances religieuses, les habitudes de vie, etc. Elles mettent en relief la diversite culturelle du Canada. D'autre part, elles peuvent favoriser la discrimination et les prejuges ainsi que la formation de ghettos. INTRODUCTION One of the striking features of contemporary Canadian population is its remarkable ethnic diversity. There are more than 200 ethnic groups identified in the census who have their origins in the migration of peoples from all over the world to Canada. The removal of discriminatory clauses in the immigration laws in the early 1960s, combined with the changing push factors in the countries of origin and the selection criteria used, resulted in an ethnic composition of Canada that is very different from what it was before the Second World War. While western Europeans predominated before 1960, in the 1960s and 1970s most immigrants were primarily from Southern and Eastern Europe. Since then however, the majority of immigrants are from Third World countries. More than half of the immigrants since 1980 were the so-called Visible Minorities: Blacks, South Asians, Chinese, Latinos, and Central Americans. For example, of the 1.8 million immigrants who arrived between 1991 and 2001,58% came from Asia (including the Middle East), 20% from Europe; 11.5% from the Caribbean, Central and South America; 8% from Africa; and 3% from the United States (Statistics Canada 2003). The importance of immigrants and their composition on the Canadian population is further accentuated by the fact that their numbers now account for greater population growth than natural increase. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".