MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945436313 · doi:10.3389/fsoc.2019.00032

Immigration, Discrimination, and Trust: A Simply Complex Relationship

2019· article· en· W2945436313 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Sociology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Capital and Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationRace (biology)IndigenousPoliticsMediationForeign bornNative-BornSocial psychologySociologyEuropean Social SurveyPsychologyPolitical scienceGender studiesSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trust is integral to the process of immigrant integration. While previous research has considered whether discrimination has an effect on trust, no study has considered the specific extent to which immigrants experience more discrimination than the native-born and how this might matter for immigrant-native gaps in trust. To address this issue we provide the first study to use a formal mediation approach to studying the immigration, discrimination, and trust relationship. Drawing on the 2013 Canadian General Social Survey data (N=27,695) we analyze differences in three kinds of trust (generalized, specific others and political), and the role of discrimination, between Canadian-born whites, Canadian-born people of colour, foreign-born whites, foreign-born people of colour, and Indigenous people. We find that discrimination has a greater impact on social rather than political relationships. Immigrants have lower social trust in general and in others because of race-based discrimination rather than because they are immigrants per se.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.273 · 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