Supporting the settlement and integration of newcomers in the Northwest Territories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the large number of immigrants arriving in Canada’s metropolitan centres, there’s an increasing need to disperse the benefits of immigrants to smaller centres -- one such place being the Northwest Territories. Government officials have responded, making public commitments to expand immigration in the North, through the launch of the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot and the Northwest Territories’ immigration strategy. Due to these public commitments and a positive trend upwards in the number of immigrants moving to the Northwest Territories, this paper asks two important research questions. Firstly, should policymakers in the Northwest Territories take on more responsibility in settling and integrating immigrants? If so, how can they better support immigrants settling and integrating into the territory’s small and remote communities? This paper has responded to these questions by conducting an academic literature review and policy literature review to examine the settlement strategies used to integrate newcomers into small and remote communities across Canada. This research found that the most important factors for successfully settling newcomers in small and remote communities include opportunities for employment, social connection, housing, education, and settlement services. Based on this analysis, three recommendations were provided to policymakers in the GNWT – primarily focused on the labour market integration and social integration of newcomers -- to prepare for future territory-driven developments in the space of settlement and integration for newcomers. Overall, this paper calls on the GNWT to seize the opportunity to bolster settlement and integration programming in the territory, starting by conducting a full evaluation of settlement services to assess their current and future capacity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".