Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents key results from a study that analyzed Canadian citizenship guides as an example of an official policy voice of the Canadian government about what it means to be a Canadian citizen and what is expected from a naturalized Canadian citizen. Six Canadian citizenship guides in the English language developed between 1947 and 2012 were analyzed by identifying the format and thematic components of the guides, and the most recurrent words and rhetorical strategies, within each contemporary historical context. Each guide constructed a narrative about what constitutes a naturalized Canadian citizen and these six individual and different narratives resulted in a historically constructed typology of naturalized Canadian citizenship: good character citizen, responsible citizen, wholesome citizen, politically active citizen, test-ready citizen, and loyal citizen. Cet article présente les principaux résultats d'une étude qui a analysé les guides de la citoyenneté canadienne à titre d'exemple d'une voix de la politique officielle du gouvernement du Canada au sujet de ce qu'être citoyen canadien signifie et ce qui est attendu d'un citoyen canadien naturalisé. Six guides de citoyenneté canadienne rédigés en anglais entre 1947 et 2012 ont été analysés en identifiant le format et les composantes thématiques des guides, et les mots les plus récurrents et les stratégies rhétoriques, dans chaque contexte historique contemporain. Chaque guide a construit un récit sur ce qui constitue un citoyen canadien naturalisé et ces six récits individuels et différents ont abouti à une typologie historiquement construite de la citoyenneté canadienne naturalisé: le citoyen de bon caractère , le citoyen responsable , le citoyen bien intégré , le citoyen politiquement actif , le citoyen prêt-à-tester , et le citoyen fidèle .
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".