MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036179464 · doi:10.1111/capa.12375

Immigration policy in Québec‐Canada as a case study of incrementalism

2020· article· en· W3036179464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexandre Couture Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncrementalismImmigrationImmigration policyPolitical scienceEconomicsLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Québec has more powers in immigration policy than other provinces. Since the 1991 Canada–Québec Accord relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens (the 1991 Agreement ), it selects almost all categories of immigrants and manages a relatively important monetary contribution from Ottawa for their integration. How did Québec and Canada arrive at the favorable‐for‐Québec 1991 Agreement ? Surveying the main actions that have comprised immigration policy in Québec and Canada from the 1960s until 1991, this article shows that the method for change was incrementalism and contributes to developing incrementalism as an applied theory of policymaking including proposing the conditions under which it is most likely to be relied on in immigration policy.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207