From Ethnicity to Race in the <i>Canadian Review of Sociology</i>, 1964 to 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Revue canadienne de sociologie a été un forum important pour la recherche sur l'ethnicité et la race. Grâce à une analyse des publications publiés dans la revue entre 1964 et 2010 nous constatons que l'ethnicité a reçu plus d'attention que la race, et que la majorité des publications se sert d'une approche d’économie politique et des méthodes quantitatives. Au fil du temps, nous relevons l'abandon du concept d'ethnicité et la montée de la race et nous relevons moins d’études quantitatives. Ces changements ont lieu en parallèle avec des changements politiques et démographiques au Canada et sont en réponse aux iniquités raciales. The Canadian Review of Sociology has been an important venue for scholarship on ethnicity and race. Through an analysis of publications dealing with both terms in the journal, between 1964 and 2010, the paper finds that publications have focused more on ethnicity than race, using a political economy approach, and quantitative methods. Over time, significant changes have occurred, including a move away from ethnicity to race and a move away from quantitative methods. Many of these changes have occurred in conjunction with policy and demographic changes in Canada and as a response to ongoing racial inequities.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".