Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: As populations in small and medium-sized Canadian communities steadily decline, migration is increasingly seen as the solution. While government programs promoting migration to smaller centres exist at both the federal and provincial levels, the long-term integration of newcomers to smaller communities remains a challenge. This tendency could be connected to the notable social, economic and political differences that have been described between larger and smaller centres which can be overlooked by theories of integration derived from empirical work conducted in larger, heavily urban centres. This article explores three theories of integration – assimilation, transnationalism and the whole-of-community approach – and their applicability to the study of small centres medium-sized centres. It suggests that the whole-of-community's emphasis on local context, multilevel governance and dynamic view of culture provides a useful framework for theorizing integration in small centres and develops a sketch of factors relevant to their study in the Canadian context. Résumé: Alors que les populations des petites et moyennes communautés canadiennes diminuent régulièrement, la migration est de plus en plus considérée comme la solution. Même si des programmes gouvernementaux favorisant la migration vers les petits centres existent aux niveaux fédéral et provincial, l'intégration à long terme des nouveaux arrivants demeure un défi. Cette tendance pourrait être liée aux différences sociales, économiques et politiques entre les grands et les petits centres qui peuvent être négligées par les théories de l'intégration dérivées de travaux empiriques menés dans des centres plus grands et fortement urbains. Cet article explore trois théories de l'intégration – l'assimilation, le transnationalisme et l'approche 'communautaire globale' – et leur applicabilité à l'étude des centres de petite et moyenne taille. Il suggère que l'accent mis par l'approche 'communautaire globale' sur le contexte local, la gouvernance à plusieurs niveaux et la vision dynamique de la culture fournit un cadre utile pour théoriser l'intégration dans les petits centres et développe une esquisse des facteurs pertinents pour leur étude dans le contexte canadien.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".