MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390047881 · doi:10.3138/cras-2023-012

Why Are Public Attitudes towards Immigration in Canada Becoming Increasingly Positive? Exploring the Factors Behind the Changes in Attitudes towards Immigration (1998–2021)

2023· article· en· W4390047881 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Seyda Ece Aytac, Andrew Parkin, Anna Triandafyllidou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationDemographic economicsEducational attainmentLogitPopulationPoliticsFinancial crisisOrdered logitLogistic regressionPolitical scienceEconomicsDemographySociologyEconomic growthMedicineEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Focusing on why and how public attitudes towards immigration in Canada have grown more positive between 1998 and 2021, this paper examines whether the changes in attitudes stem from changes in population characteristics or changes in the effect of these characteristics. Our analysis sheds light on the implications of the 2008–2010 financial crisis on the support for immigration. Our logit regression analysis shows that positive attitudes towards immigration are positively related to higher levels of education attainment regardless of the survey years but negatively associated with the support for conservative political parties, especially during and after the financial crisis. By employing decomposition analysis, we investigate the shift in public opinions across individual characteristics before, during, and after the 2008 financial crisis. We find that, for all periods, most of the attitude shift results from the change in the effect of population characteristics rather than the change in the characteristics themselves.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207