MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Who Are the Immigrants?

2015· book-chapter· en· W4232474238 on OpenAlex
Richard Alba, Nancy Foner

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrinceton University Press eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationPolitical scienceImmigration policyImmigration lawDevelopment economicsEconomyDemographic economicsGeographyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter explores the role of post-World War II immigration laws and policies of France, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, United States, and Canada in giving rise to the mix of new social groups on their social landscapes. In one fundamental sense, the immigration regimes of European countries, the United States, and Canada are very much alike. All are restrictive in that they set limits on the numbers and type of people who can settle as permanent residents. There are, however, important transatlantic differences, lending some support to the common perception that Canada and the United States are more welcoming of immigration. Western European countries continue to be wary about immigration from outside of Europe. Their wariness is reflected in their attempts to make migration through marriages to the second generation more difficult as well as in immigration laws that constrain economic migration from the global South, keeping its numbers modest while seeking to select high human-capital immigrants.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.205 · 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