Bibliographic record
Abstract
The “Canadian school” of social and political theory has been at the forefront of theoretical reflection on the problem of multicultural diversity. These theoretical contributions, some claim, have built on Canada’s proven political capacity to accommodate deep diversity. Canada was the first nation in the world to adopt multiculturalism as its official state policy, a landmark venture that was wedded to an equally strong commitment to the modern rights revolution. The historic 1982 constitutional act that established the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also entrenched multiculturalism, gender equality, aboriginal rights, and bilingualism – as well as reaffirming confessional educational rights of Catholics and Protestant minority communities. This is a classic Canadian constitutional mix. How does marriage fare in this land of multiculturalism, rights, and deep diversity? Canadian couples dwell in a complex array of political intersections, cultural fissures, and ideological divides when it comes to questions of gender, sexual orientation, and conjugality. In the last decade, Canada has been at the forefront of a number of innovative developments in the domain of conjugality. After a relatively tame public debate, Canada redefined marriage to include gay and lesbian couples. Canadian courts and legislatures have been advancing our constitutional commitments to gender equality in areas of conflict between civil and religious family law. Moreover, Canadian and provincial governments have launched a public debate over the question of decriminalizing polygamy. By 2003, Canada’s growing “boldness in social matters” was earning it a “rather cool” rating from global public pundits. It remains an open question, however, whether these developments have uniformly caused gains in advancing Canadian commitments to deep diversity in the domain of conjugality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.005 |
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".