MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416320545 · doi:10.1080/1369183x.2025.2585131

Naturalisation in decline? A cross-national study of recent immigrants in Australia and Canada

2025· article· en· W4416320545 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Feng Hou, Yan Tan, Garnett Picot, Li Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiaspora, migration, transnational identity
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Knowledge MobilizationEngineers Without Borders CanadaStatistics Canada
FundersAustralian Research CouncilImmigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
KeywordsNaturalisationImmigrationDeportationPopulationCitizenship

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the paradoxical decline in citizenship acquisition in Australia and Canada, two nations historically defined by high immigrant naturalisation. Analysing census microdata from 2011, 2016, and 2021, we employ a comparative framework to assess trends while controlling for evolving immigrant sociodemographics. The results reveal a pronounced and parallel decline in naturalisation among recent immigrants (6–10 years since admission), a trend not explained by compositional shifts. Instead, the findings challenge monocausal explanations, demonstrating that the decline is driven by a complex interplay of factors: restrictive policy reforms that disproportionately curb uptake among lower-income and less-educated immigrants, and the ascendancy of transnationalism, which recalibrates the cost–benefit calculus for migrants from rapidly developing economies. The differential declines have led to an increased stratification in formal membership, diverging by admission category and origin country. The study concludes that the declining and increasingly stratified nature of naturalisation complicates its use as a straightforward metric of integration, underscoring a critical tension between global mobility and inclusive citizenship in the twenty-first century.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ethnic and Migration StudiesSame topicDiaspora, migration, transnational identityFrench-language works237,207