MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606889867 · doi:10.29173/cjs28660

Citizenship Revocation in the Mainstream Press: A Case of Re-ethnicization?

2017· article· en· W2606889867 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ivana Previsic, Elke Winter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Sociology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipMainstreamLawLegislationSociologyImmigrationGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceRevocationTerrorismNaturalizationNewspaperPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under the government of Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party (2006-2015), Canada witnessed numerous alterations of its immigration and citizenship rules. Under the new Citizenship Act (2014), dual citizens who have committed high treason, terrorism or espionage could lose their Canadian citizenship. In this paper, we examine how the measure was discussed in Canada’s mainstream newspapers. We ask: who/what is seen as the target of citizenship revocation? What does this tell us about the direction that Canadian citizenship is moving towards? As promoters of civic literacy, mainstream media disseminate information about government actions and legislation, interpret policies and are highly influential in forming public opinion. Our findings show that the newspapers were more often critical than supportive of the citizenship revocation provision. However, they also interpreted the measure as only likely to affect Canadian Muslims in general and omitted discussing the involvement of non-Muslim and, in particular, white, Western-origin Canadians in terrorist acts. Thus, despite advocating for equal citizenship in principle, Canadian Muslims were nonetheless constructed as less Canadian.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of SociologySame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207