Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elke Winter’s latest work on pluralism and national identity has an iconoclastic quality that helps put Canadian multiculturalism in a new and more interesting light. But it also raises troubling questions about how this national tradition operates. This critique focuses on six aspects of her work: 1) the othering process that persists within the pluralist dynamic; 2) the moral questions surrounding negotiation; 3) whether normative pluralism has any moral qualities; 4) the absence of intention in the process she describes; 5) the implications of her work for our understanding of nation-building; and 6) the conformist qualities of Canadian multiculturalism. Le caractère iconoclaste des derniers travaux de Elke Winters sur le pluralisme et l’identité nationale permet de jeter un éclairage nouveau et plus intéressant sur le multiculturalisme canadien. Mais il soulève aussi des questions troublantes sur la manière dont cette tradition nationale opère. Cette critique se focalise sur six aspects de ces travaux : 1) l’image de l’Autre qui persiste au sein de la dynamique pluraliste; 2) les questions morales autour de la négociation; 3) si un pluralisme normatif a une quelconque qualité morale; 4) l’absence d’intention dans le processus qu’elle décrit; 5) les implications de ses travaux dans notre compréhension de la construction d’une nation et 6) le caractère conformiste du multiculturalisme canadien.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".