Social Integration of Immigrants into Multiracial Singapore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction While most modern nation-states are multicultural to some degree in that they are composed of people with distinct ethno-racial, linguistic, or religious cultures, the level of interaction and exposure of those who are culturally different is sometimes limited based on geographical boundaries and group segregation practices. Globalization and its concomitant immigration has, however, increased population diversity particularly in economically developed societies. This has led a number of societies to adopt multicultural policies to deal with immigration. Essentially such policies are meant to ensure the inclusion of immigrant populations into mainstream society, improve their social and economic position, and accord them equal rights. While previously seen as crucial for social cohesion, in more recent years a number of European societies have questioned the utility of such policies. The cultures of immigrants are handled differently depending on the framework of multiculturalism that is used in a particular nation-state. Vasu distinguishes between two broad forms of multiculturalism – mild and a hard form. Mild multiculturalism, as found in the United States, acknowledges the reality of a plural society and guarantees that a spectrum of identities will mark society. Nevertheless, it does not commit to any one identity thriving in the nation-state and so does not find a compelling reason to preserve a particular group. Embracing hard multiculturalism on the other hand means that nation-states work to preserve individual group rights. Politics in such nation-states is intricately connected to the greater project of ensuring that groups are able to affirm their differences and that minority groups are recognized, protected, and given political representation. Canada, for example, passed the 1988 Canadian Multiculturalism Act, making it the first country to pass a national multiculturalism law affirming multiculturalism as a “fundamental value of Canadian society.” Besides constitutional measures and legislation, Canada also has multicultural programmes operating from the municipal to the provincial and federal government levels. Although nation-states that adopt the hard multiculturalism model endeavour to preserve minority rights, their official positions may not resonate with the interests of mainstream populations. Research on European societies, many of which practice hard multiculturalism, shows that the mainstream population is generally neutral about multiculturalism – objectionable to discrimination of new immigrants but not open to new immigrants maintaining their culture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".