“Contextualizing Immigrant Religious Participation: A Test of Religious Heterogeneity and Religious Proportionality”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the recent terrorist attacks in the United States and Britain, the topics of religion and immigration have received increased attention. This present situation has caused a recurring question to emerge: what factors influence the rise or fall of immigrant religious participation? Unfortunately, a lack of available data has made it difficult for researchers to address factors that may contribute to the increase of immigrant religious participation. However, theories from the sociology of migration and religion point towards two possible factors within the immigrant’s context of settlement that bear an influence on immigrant religious participation- religious heterogeneity (i.e. religious pluralism) and religious proportionality (i.e. ethnic enclave theory). In this paper, tests for the competing viewpoints within the religious heterogeneity and religious proportionality hypotheses are conducted using recent data from the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada.1 Results indicate that increased religious heterogeneity increases religious participation for religious groups besides Protestants and Catholics. Increased religious proportionality decreases religious participation among Protestants and Catholic immigrants but increases religious participation of immigrants belonging to
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".