Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT/RESUME Community governance and leadership are vital to the process of identity formation. Group vitality is often closely tied to the depth and variety of community institutions. Historically, the institutions of Canada's ethnnocultural communities were religiously based. A decline in clerical leadership resulted in ethnocultural organizations evolving away from appointing leaders and moved toward electing them. These efforts at democratizing ethnocultural governance were further motivated by heightened government support of communal organizations and the desire for greater accountability. During the 1990s a substantial reduction in federal assistance to national ethnocultural organizations resulted in a weakening of many of these bodies. In that decade a societal devaluation of ethnic identification combined with communal needs becoming more local in nature rendered ethnocultural community organizations less relevant on the national level. Recently, ethnocultural organizations have been accused of 'ethnicizing' public debate by practicing identity politics while at the same time marginalizing their members by presumably limiting their opportunities for participation in the mainstream. This contradiction underlying much of the current criticism of the legitimacy and actions of ethnocultural leadership stems from a problem with standards used to conduct evaluations. There is a need to establish proper criteria to assess the representative character and effectiveness of ethnocultural governance and leadership. La gouvernance et le leadership d'une communaute sont vitaux au processus de la formation identitaire. La vitalite de groupe est souvent liee de pres a la profondeur et a la variete des institutions communautaires. Historiquement, les institutions des communautes ethnoculturelles du Canada etaient fortement liee a l'identification religicuse. Un declin dans le leadership clerical a pousse les organisations a evoluer vers l'election des dirigeants au lieu de les nommer. Ces efforts de democratiser la gouvernance ethnoculturelle ont ete motives par l'augmentation du support gouvernemental envers les organisations communautaires et le desir de les rendre plus redevable. Au cours des annees 1990, une reduction substantielle de l'appui gouvernemental aux organisations ethnoculturelles nationales a cause l'affaiblissement de plusieurs d'entre-elles. En effet, une devaluation societale de l'identite ethnique s'est produite au cours de cette decennie. Simultanement, la nature des besoins communautaires est devenue pl us locale, rendant ainsi les organisations ethnoculturelles communautaires moms pertinentes sur la scene nationale. Recemment, les organisations ethnoculturelles ont ete accusees d' ethniciser les debats publics en pratiquant une politique identitaire tout en marginalisant leurs membres en limitant leurs opportunites de participation aux institutions qui representent l'ensemble de la socicte. Cette contradiction, qui sous-tend une grande partie des critiques de la legitimite et des actions du leadership ethnoculturel, est reliee un probleme des standards d'evaluation. II est necessaire d'etablir des criteres pertinents l'evaluation du caractere representatif et de l'efficacite de la gouvernance et du leadership ethnoculturels. INTRODUCTION Leadership is a function of the input an individual can make into the community's capacity for concerted action, into the total power of the community in relation to the problems and opportunities it encounters (Breton, 1991). The strength of communal expressions of identity very often depends upon the extent to which a group is able to mobilize persons around shared interests and objectives. Those charged with defining and implementing a community's agenda play a decisive role in shaping such objectives. Understanding the process by which leaders emerge can provide valuable insights into institutional life and the manner in which a community sets its agenda and establishes priorities. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".