“We Can’t Be Too Selective about This”: Immigration Advocacy in the Canadian English-Language Press, 1949–57
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigration policy during the immediate years after the Second World War highly restricted the arrival of newcomers. Before 1947, Canada’s immigration system was a preferential one, with the highest priority given to British subjects coming to Canada from the United Kingdom, or from any of the British dominions, and the United States. Canada’s preferences then extended to Northern Europeans, then to Central and Southern Europeans. Chinese, Greeks, Italians, Portuguese, and Spanish immigrants were excluded. During the years of Prime Minister Louis St-Laurent (1948–57), Canadians read about the economic benefits that a robust immigration policy promised in the English-language press. The St-Laurent government was under significant pressure to increase the flow of migrants into Canada. However, the Liberal government studiously monitored recent arrivals with a conservative approach to economic growth. The Canadian business community perceived this policy as too cautious, and their preference for a more robust policy frequently surfaced in the English-language press. This article shows that newspapers coverage across the country criticized the government’s immigration policy during the 1950s and advocated for an approach that accommodated more newcomers to spur population and economic growth. Through their coverage, the editors and journalists reasoned that boosting immigration accelerated the Canadian economy. English Canadian journalists and newspapers attempted to influence Canadians about the economic benefits of increasing migration to Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".