Spatial Residential Patterns and Socio-Economic Integration of Filipinos in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT/RESUME Using 2001 Census data, this study examines the residential segregation of Filipinos in Canada's six metropolitan areas, where 87 percent of them live. Filipinos, like other visible minorities, are more concentrated than European groups, with physical segregation being greater in Montreal and Winnipeg than in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, or Edmonton. Filipino immigrants are generally more highly educated than other ethnic groups. However, in all six cities, Filipino neighbourhoods have lower average family income compared to each of the cities' averages, and the rates of home-ownership are lower, particularly in the three gateway cities of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. One test of the success of Canada's multiculturalism policies is whether these conditions will improve for subsequent generations of Filipino-Canadians. En se basant sur les donnees du recensement de 2001, cette etude examine la segregation residentielle de personnes d'origine philippine au sein des six regions metropolitaines du Canada, ou vivent 87 pourcent de la population de ce groupe. Comme d'autres membres de minorites visibles, les personnes d'origine philippine se concentrent plus dans un quartier que les personnes d'origine europeenne, et cette segregation est plus forte a Montreal et a Winnipeg, qu'a Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary ou Edmonton. En moyenne, les immigrants des Philippines sont plus eduques que les autres membres de groupes ethniques. Par ailleurs, dans les six centres metropolitains, les familles dans les quartiers a concentration philippine ont un revenu inferieur a celui de l'ensemble de la metropole, et l'accession a la propriete est inferieure, et ce, surtout a Toronto, a Montreal et a Vancouver. Le succes des politiques portant sur le multiculturalisme depend de l'amelioration, ou non, des conditions de vie des prochaines generations de philippino-canadiens. INTRODUCTION Filipinos are one of the fastest-growing ethnic groups in Canada, their number increasing fourfold from 72,630 in 1981 to 308,575 in 2001. They are the fourth-largest visible minority after Chinese, South Asians, and Blacks. This is remarkable, given the relatively small population base from which they come. Compared to China and India, with populations of over a billion each, and the large black populations in Africa, the Caribbean, and elsewhere, the Philippines had a population of only eighty million in 2003. The liberalization of immigration laws in Canada, its selection criteria for new immigrants, labour requirements, and geopolitical situations have all been instrumental in this rapid influx of Filipino immigrants. This unprecedented growth of Filipinos in Canada through immigration raises interesting questions about their integration into Canadian society. Are they selective regarding their final destinations in Canada? Many studies have shown that new immigrants select their destinations on the basis of employment opportunities, the presence of relatives and friends, and the availability of various services and facilities in the new communities. It is not surprising that large cities such as Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal attract most new immigrants. Where do the Filipinos stand in relation to the other minorities in their choices of destination? Because much migration from the third world is chain migration, there is a tendency for the new migrant to settle in the same place as the sponsoring migrant. This can result in a greater spatial concentration in areas where previous migrants settled. Is there evidence of this happening in the case of Filipinos in Canada, or do they redistribute themselves as they become better integrated into the host country? Further, it is often found that rapid immigration hampers the assimilation of immigrants. The host society may not be prepared to handle the problems facing new immigrants, such as learning a new language, finding employment and housing, and accessing various types of welfare services. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".