MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034049126 · doi:10.3138/ijcs.2014.017

Identity and Deference: <i>A Border Within</i> 15 Years On

2014· article· en· W2034049126 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ian Angus

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Canadian Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismDeferenceIdentity (music)Argument (complex analysis)Context (archaeology)SociologyNational identityState (computer science)SituatedPower (physics)Political scienceGender studiesEpistemologyPolitical economyLawAestheticsPoliticsHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This lecture is a reconsideration of the arguments of A Border Within (1997) in the light of the “Harper Era” that emerged after its publication. The hypothesis was that English-Canadian culture contained the possibility of addressing the philosophical issue of identity and difference in a distinct fashion. It proceeded bottom-up by taking the discourses of national identity, multiculturalism, and environmentalism on their own terms. My critics in discourses of both multiculturalism and ecological thought have brought to my attention issues that were not dealt with sufficiently in the text. In each case the core issue is the tendency within the field of social power to group differences around an organizing centre that I called a “system” and that critics usually articulate through reference to post-structuralist authors. In one respect, the neo-liberal global context represented by the “Harper era” does require revision of the argument. It has become clear that any national project itself is fundamentally situated within a global economy and culture. So, the indecision has been decided by history: one can no longer see the nation state—or even the multinational state—as the container for all pertinent social projects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207