Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This thematic issue has been produced to provide a background for discussion of the conceptual framework and development of indicators of ethnicity in Canada. Currently, the most comprehensive and consistent data source for measures of ethnicity is the Census of Population, conducted every five years, which asks a 20 percent sample of the population to report on the ethnic origin(s) of their ancestors. In 2002, a new survey on issues of ethnicity in society--the Diversity Survey--was conducted by Statistics Canada (in partnership with the Department of Heritage). The goal of that survey was to deconstruct concepts of ethnic ancestry and identity in order to better understand the role of ethnicity in people's lived experiences in society. The goal of this collection of articles is to provide a context for current applications of research on ethnicity in Canada and to stimulate discussion regarding how best to collect data and do applied research using these concepts in the future, given the changing demographics of the country. The papers selected for this publication were taken from a symposium on Ethnic Origin Data from the 2001 Census: Implications for Policy Research, held in Ottawa on March 28, 2003. The symposium was organized by the Citizenship and Heritage sector of the Department of Heritage, which is proud to encourage and facilitate such a discussion on issues of ethnicity and diversity. These are issues which are important to all Canadians, as well as being an integral part of the mandate of the Department of Heritage. The contributors come from a wide range of disciplines and backgrounds, but they all share a common interest in researching issues of ethnicity and diversity in society, and all have experience working with the complex and detailed data on ethnic origin that we have access to through Canada's Census of Population. In particular, 2002 and 2003 have been exciting years for researchers as new data is released from the first census of the millenium, which was carried out on May 15, 2001. Most significant to the analytic papers in this collection, the 2001 Census is unique in that it provides current data not only for ethnic origin using the traditional question about a respondent's ancestry, but also for the place of birth of each of the respondent's parents. This combination is precious to those working in research, program development, and policy making in Canada, as it allows for timely analysis and comparison of different concepts related to measuring ethnicity--ethnic origin and place of birth of parents. Dr. Richard Bourhis provides a conceptual and historical overview of the 2001 Census questions related to ethnic ancestry and diversity in the first article. He clarifies the context behind selected diversity indicators included on the long form census that is completed by a random sample of 20 percent of the population each census year. The political, social, and legal contexts discussed provide an important backdrop to the development and evolution of these questions on the national census. In particular, the article addresses the Canadian response to the ethnic origin question in addition to focusing on the unique situation of ethnic origin reporting trends in Quebec. It contrasts the debates in Canada about the inclusion of a question on ethnicity in the census with similar debates in France and provides a useful counterpoint to ongoing discussions here. In the second article, Dr. Jack Jedwab stresses the importance of research and analysis for understanding ethnicity in Canada. His article builds on the historical debates of the previous article in order to present questions and challenges to normative notions of ethnicity and ethnic identification, as well as to address what these mean at a practical, societal level. The article addresses the phenomena of Canadian and multiple reporting on the census, while contextualizing these trends with complementary survey and polling data. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,031 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,050 | 0,013 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».