Economic thinking and cultural enrichment beliefs about immigration: Development and validation of the ETCEI scale
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, political discourse on immigration is often framed in terms of (cultural and economic) contribution. Research on immigration attitudes, however, are primarily framed in terms of realistic and symbolic threat and competition. We develop a scale assessing Economic Thinking and Cultural Enrichment Beliefs About Immigration (ETCEI; Study 1-3) to reflect this contemporary discourse. Economic thinking was negatively associated with cultural enrichment beliefs––a pattern reflected in their association with ideological dispositions and personality (Study 1-2). Cultural enrichment beliefs were associated with ideological dispositions and traits associated with pro-diversity orientations, predicting preferences for expanding immigration and positive attitudes towards non-White European groups. Economic thinking was associated with prejudice-related ideological dispositions and individual differences, preferences towards economic migrants, East Asians (Study 2). Looking at measurement invariance and group differences (Study 3), immigrants and men scored higher on economic thinking; women and racialized people scored higher on cultural enrichment beliefs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it