The CAQ and immigration: a new frontier for Quebec politics?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2018, when the CAQ was elected to form the new government of Quebec, it won on a platform that contained numerous measures to restrict immigration. Some of these measures were criticized and described as marking a radical shift in the province’s historical approach to immigration. In order to gain a more precise understanding of the implications of the CAQ’s position for Quebec politics, this thesis asks the question: How different is the CAQ’s position on immigration from that of the province’s main other political parties? To answer this question, this thesis looks at electoral platforms and parliamentary debates, using manual coding (NVivo) and computer-aided dictionary analysis (RStudio). By looking at the CAQ, the PLQ and the PQ’s stance, salience and discourse on immigration, it finds that although the CAQ proposed measures that are more restrictive towards immigration, it did so by mobilizing long-standing and well-established discursive logics. This in turn leads us to question our understanding of Quebec as a “pro-immigration” space, as well as the relevance of “pro” and “anti” immigration labels, and invites further research into a more systemized and helpful classification of parties and their positions on immigration.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".