MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382345106 · doi:10.1111/cars.12443

La migration interprovinciale chez les immigrants musulmans : La francophonie comme vecteur d'intégration?

2023· article· fr· W4382345106 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jacob Legault‐Leclair

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationContext (archaeology)Political scienceHumanitiesPoliticsEthnologySociologyGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, immigrants are more likely to migrate within the country-interprovincial migration, for example-than Canadian-born individuals. This is particularly true of Muslim immigrants. In this article, we seek to identify the characteristics that determine the second migrations undertaken by these immigrants. To do so, we have focused on (1) the socio-demographic characteristics specific to this community (language in particular) and (2) the socio-political context of the various provinces welcoming these immigrants. The results lead us to relativize the hypothesis of a tension between living in a French-speaking environment with a tense socio-political context for the Muslim community, and an English-speaking environment where the socio-political issues specific to this community are less present. Beyond strictly economic considerations, Muslim immigrants must also negotiate their integration by taking into account the language and the environment where certain socio-political issues concerning them are more or less debated and/or where their official language of choice is not spoken.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologieSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207