MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024088088 · doi:10.1017/s0008423910000041

Testing the Liberal Multiculturalist Hypothesis: Normative Theories and Social Science Evidence

2010· article· en· W2024088088 on OpenAlexaffabout
Will Kymlicka

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismNormativeDemocracyPolitical scienceLiberalismCitizenshipPoliticsPolitical philosophyHumanitiesSociologyPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract.For much of the 1990s, the academic literature on multiculturalism was heavily normative, dominated by political philosophers who developed idealized theories of a distinctly liberal–democratic form of multicultural citizenship. This “liberal multiculturalism hypothesis”—the notion that multiculturalism policies can be adopted without jeopardizing core liberal–democratic values—has been quite influential, shaping debates not just within the field of philosophy, but more widely in academia and indeed in public life. Many social scientists, however, question whether multiculturalism in the real world has been so benign. This paper considers the available evidence, empirically testing the liberal multiculturalism hypothesis, both in Canada and cross-nationally. What does this evidence tell us about the prospects for liberal–democratic multiculturalism and about the impact of multicultural policies on liberal–democratic values? Résumé.Au cours des années 1990, la littérature académique sur le multiculturalisme était décidément normative, dominée par des philosophes politiques qui ont développé des théories idéalisées d'une forme de citoyenneté multiculturelle nettement libérale-démocrate. Cette «hypothèse du multiculturalisme libéral» – la notion que des politiques de multiculturalisme peuvent être adoptées sans compromettre les valeurs fondamentales de la démocratie libérale – s'est avérée très influente, structurant les débats non seulement dans l'enceinte de la philosophie, mais aussi dans l'arène plus vaste du milieu académique et même dans la vie publique. Plusieurs chercheurs en sciences humaines, cependant, se demandent si le multiculturalisme dans le monde réel a été si bénin. Cet article examine la preuve disponible tout en évaluant empiriquement l'hypothèse du multiculturalisme libéral, tant au Canada qu'ailleurs. Que nous indique cette preuve concernant l'avenir du multiculturalisme libéral démocratique et l'impact des politiques multiculturelles sur les valeurs de la démocratie libérale?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.021
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207