Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been fifty years since Canada took the historic step of abolishing race-based immigrant admissions.The 1967 immigration regulations removed any remaining ethnoracial discrimination from family sponsorship and placed economic immigration policy on a skills-based footing.A decade later, the 1976 Immigration Act institutionalized these changes and broke new ground by articulating the fundamental principles governing Canadian immigration policy.The Act, which remains the cornerstone of present-day immigration policy, established three distinct immigration streams, each serving a distinct goal.First, family sponsorship was "to facilitate the reunion in Canada of Canadian citizens and permanent residents with their close relatives from abroad."Second, economic immigration was to select skilled workers and business immigrants who would "foster the development of a strong and viable economy and the prosperity of all regions in Canada."Third, humanitarian immigration was "to fulfil Canada's international legal obligations with respect to refugees and to uphold its humanitarian tradition with respect to the displaced and the persecuted." 2 The policy goals of each stream -family reunification, economic growth, and refugee protection -continue to enjoy broad societal and bipartisan support today.Thus, in this appraisal of the past fifty years of Canadian immigration policy we ask, to what extent has Canada succeeded in achieving these goals?Canada's Commitment to Family reunification With the passage of the 1976 Immigration Act, Canadian lawmakers turned their back on race-based family admissions and embraced the universal sponsorship of spouses, children, parents, and grandparents 17 Fifty Years of Canadian Immigration Policy 1 antje ellermann
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".