Us, Them, and Others: Reflections on Canadian Multiculturalism and National Identity at the Turn of the Twenty‐First Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Conférence John Porter , effectuée lors de la rencontre annuelle de la Société canadienne de sociologie à Victoria en 2013, se base sur le livre Us, Them and Others : Pluralism and National Identity in Diverse Societies (Winter, 2011). En intégrant les résultats d'une analyse discursive des journaux canadiens en langue anglaise pendant les années 1990, et à travers un cadre théorique inspiré de la sociologie wébérienne, le livre propose d'envisager le pluralisme comme une série de relations triangulaires dynamiques, où le compromis entre des groupes inégaux – “us” et “other”‐ est amené à faire sens à cause de la confrontation avec l'autrui réel ou imaginé (“them”). La conférence débute par un résumé de la contribution théorique, puis explique comment le multiculturalisme a été consolidé en tant que discours dominant au Canada dans les années 1990. Par la suite, les changements subis par l'identité canadienne multiculturelle au début du 21 e siècle sont discutés. The John Porter Lecture at the annual meeting of the Canadian Sociological Association in Victoria 2013 draws upon my book Us, Them, and Others: Pluralism and National Identity in Diverse Societies . Incorporating the findings from an analysis of Canadian English‐language newspaper discourses during the 1990s into a theoretical framework inspired by Weberian sociology, the book argues that pluralism is best understood as a dynamic set of triangular relations where the compromise between unequal groups—“us” and “others”—is rendered meaningful through the confrontation with real or imagined outsiders (“them”). The lecture summarizes the theoretical contribution and explains how multiculturalism became consolidated in dominant Canadian discourses in the late 1990s. The lecture then discusses changes to Canadian multicultural identity at the beginning of the twenty‐first century.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".