Are There Significant Differences Between Multiculturalism and Interculturalism?: A Study of the Integration of Newcomers in Toronto and Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigrant integration is a prominent issue in Canada, in which one-fifth of the population is foreign-born. The Canadian government adopted an official policy of multiculturalism as a means of managing its growing diversity, proclaiming all minority cultures as equal. Meanwhile, Quebec has chosen to manage its diversity differently, adopting an unofficial policy of interculturalism, in an attempt to preserve its minority culture and language, and presenting some interesting questions about the integration of minorities in the province. This paper examines the political cultures of federal multiculturalism and Quebec’s interculturalism, the ideals behind them, and the criticisms mounted against each. Using data from Statistics Canada, this study examines the impact of factors such as immigrant source countries, visible minority status, and religion on immigrants’ economic and political outcomes. Based on the findings, it appears that immigrants in Montreal, and Quebec more widely, fare worse economically and politically than their counterparts in Toronto, and are falling well behind the Canadian-born population.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".