Intercultural twinning within community organizations in the province of Quebec: A successful practice in reducing prejudices and promoting intergroup contact?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To provide immigrants with conditions conducive to their settlement process, community intercultural twinning programs have been deployed in Quebec over the years through different institutions. Those programs are offered to immigrants from all immigration categories and have been acclaimed as tools to foster integration, but also intercultural rapprochement, which is seen as important in the Québécois context because the province continues to experience problems of racism and systemic discrimination. While intercultural twinning programs overseen by education and work institutions have been subject to many studies, intercultural twinning programs in community organizations have received little academic attention, despite presenting differences in participants’ profiles, resources, and sequences. It is important to study this gap because these different types of twinning do not have the same objectives, nor are they based on the same logic. Based on 46 semi-structured interviews, this article addresses one of the effects of participating in a community organization’s intercultural twinning: changes in prejudices among participants. We argue that a positive intercultural twinning experience contributes to reducing prejudices for both newcomers and host society member twins, though a negative intercultural twinning experience can reinforce pre-existing prejudices, especially among participants who had no previous intergroup contact. Previous intercultural experience emerged as a common denominator among host society members interviewed (23/26), but our results show that having previous intercultural experience can also mitigate, in some cases, the reduction of prejudices of participants. Lastly, we have established three categories of factors influencing intercultural twinning relationships: personal, language, and structural. We explain the importance of focusing on all these factors to improve the potential of twinning.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".