Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper summarizes immigration policy models in Germany, France, the UK, the USA and Canada in response to the growing immigration flows since the second half of the XXth century. By contrast with “traditional” nation states of Western Europe, the USA and Canada have developed on the basis of the settler colonies having melted immigrants of various ethnic and cultural origins. The USA and Canada have been prioritizing immigration as a factor of their national development. Although public culture in these immigration states has been developing on some specific cultural patterns, American and Canadian societies have not generated the concepts and perceptions of an “ethno-cultural” core of the nation as such. One of the reasons for current integration issues in the West is the struggle of immigrants for their collective cultural rights in host societies. Differences in political culture between Western European states and immigration states (the USA and Canada in this case) determine the gap in the institutionalization of collective rights for immigrants and, correspondingly, specific character of integration issues. Transition to the pluralistic model of national integration in the USA and Canada is determined by the following factors. First, due to mass immigration, there emerged liberalization of immigration policies. Secondly, in the post-war period, political cultures in liberal democracies witnessed a pronounced republican tendency, due to the ideological influence generated in times of The African-American Civil Rights Movement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".