Immigration, Bureaucracies and Policy Formulation: The Case of Quebec
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Based on an ethnography of one illuminating case – the formulation of new immigration policy statement entitled “Together, we are Quebec” between 2014 and 2016 – this article argues that policy formulation is an important site of power and influence over immigration‐related policies for bureaucrats. In dialogue with concepts and theories from public administration, it demonstrates that a broad mandate of reform and modernization, coupled with political tensions surrounding diversity, created opportunities for the bureaucracy to influence Quebec's immigration policy following its interests, relations, expertise and experience. In this case, the bureaucracy's influence operated through two pathways: problem definition and consensus building. While this influence is partially contingent on political and institutional characteristics of the Quebec context, this case shows that scholarship on immigration policy and politics should embrace a much broader reading of the influence of bureaucrats on the content and development of immigration‐related policies.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it