Framing the Immigrant Family: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Immigrant Families and Family-Related Immigration Policies in Newsprint Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family-related immigration and the economic, social and emotional costs of family separation, continue to be undervalued within Canadian immigration policy and public discourse. Situated in the current neoliberal context, current immigration policy is largely informed by human-capital theory which treats (im)migrants as individuals, ignoring their social, emotional, and familial ties (Gabriel, 2006). As well, Canadian policies perpetuate a narrow construction of “the family,†the nuclear or conjugal family, which structures who can immigrate and ultimately become a citizen, leading to negative outcomes for (im)migrant families. This work seeks to examine, through employing a critical media discourse analysis, how (im)migrant families are framed in newsprint media during a time of significant changes to family-related immigration (2011-2019). My analysis found that both which type of family is being written about as well as the framing of (im)migrant families and family-related immigration policies in newspaper articles, depended greatly upon the ideology of the newspaper and which government was in power at the time of publishing. Key words: Immigrant family; migrant family; family reunification; Canada; nation-building
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".