Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a collection of papers about immigrant settlement policy in Canada.We think that this is an intriguing area for students of public policy.It involves a complicated set of relations between governments -federal, provincial, regional, municipal, and, in some places, at the neighbourhood level.It also involves dense networks of organized interests that represent immigrants, ethnocultural communities, and individuals interested in refugees and other immigrants; some of these organizations actually deliver most services to immigrants to Canada.So it is interesting to analyze both this complex system of governance and also the policy outputs that it produces.Immigrant settlement is also a very important policy area.It is crucial to Canada's future development, as it has been central to the past evolution of the country.The current immigrant experience is often very different from that of the past, when coming to Canada entailed a permanent rupture with the home society and with family.Now many immigrants retain links with "home," and they have alternative possible destinations, so policies about attracting and retaining immigrants are more important than ever.Part of the objective of the research reported here is to suggest how such policies can be improved.This is a collection of research that stands alone and makes a significant contribution to our knowledge about immigrant settlement in Canada.It is also, however, part of a much larger project.For some time, many scholars have been working on aspects of research within the framework of this project -Multilevel Governance and Public Policy in Canadian Municipalities.The project has many components, but the bulk of the work has been done on 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.308 | 0.101 |
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".