Federal policy evolution, newcomer integration and data reporting: the strengths and weaknesses of Canadian immigration policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the different immigration streams in Canada- family reunification, economic immigrants and refugee protection- newcomers have cited diverse experiences. This is problematic since Canada has a goal of increasing its population to a hundred million within the next seventy-eight years (Century Initiative, 2020). Sixty-two million new Canadians facing inconsistent settlement experiences would be considered a failure of this policy (Century Initiative, 2020). The literature of integration in Canada diverges into two streams: economic model of conformity and socio-cultural. According to the literature, Canada’s immigration policies use more of an economic conformity model than a socio-cultural conformity model of integration, with the former more widely cited. The strength of Canada’s economic conformity model was challenged when comparing immigration policies and immigrant outcomes with Australia and New Zealand. Using a case-oriented comparative analysis, performance indicators demonstrated that Canada had the strongest socio-cultural integration policies between the three cases. These findings were triangulated by a document analysis of Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada’s departmental plans and performance reports from 1998 till 2020. Analyzing the evolution of immigration policies across the different streams found that the federal government decentralized policies and programs to the provincial level. This allowed newcomers to better adapt to the needs and environment of their specific provinces, confirming Canada’s socio-cultural approach to integration. Canada’s strength in its immigration policy resulted in the federal government’s ability to decentralize programs and policies to the provincial level such as welcoming and integrating new immigrants. The document analysis also found inconsistencies with performance indicators measuring integration across the three streams: economic immigrants were only assessed on economic integration factors whereas family reunified immigrants and refugees were only assessed on socio-cultural integration indicators.
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 | 0.092 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".