Bibliographic record
Abstract
ONE OF THE STATED GOALS of Canada's foreign policy is to promote a greater understanding and appreciation of values. Many of these values are in fact widely shared across the western democracies, if not around the world-e.g., human rights, peace, development, the environment. But some of these values are more distinctively Canadian. Foremost amongst these is the value of or pluralism. When Canadian politicians and diplomats act on the international stage, they often emphasize that is a defining characteristic of Canadian society and of Canadian identity. To understand Canada, it is said, one must understand the Canadian of diversity. Moreover, this is said to offer valuable lessons for other countries. While acknowledging that tensions remain amongst some of our ethnic, national, and linguistic groups, it is often suggested that Canadians have some special experience and expertise in accommodating diversity. We have some unique understanding of the benefits that can bring, and of the tools needed to manage in a non-violent and cooperative way. Sharing this understanding is one of Canada's major contributions to the international community.In this article, I will explore this discourse of a model of pluralism, and the way it is invoked in the international arena. I will begin by noting some of the ways in which the Canadian government promotes this discourse internationally and its various motives for doing so. I will then consider whether there really is anything distinctive about Canada's approach to diversity, and if so, whether it is successful and suitable for emulation elsewhere. While I support many aspects of Canada's approach to pluralism, I will argue that the government discourse on obscures as much as it reveals about the Canadian experience and its international relevance.PROMOTING THE CANADIAN MODEL ABROADIn various public speeches and documents, Canadian officials assert that Canada has been successful in accommodating diversity. By itself, this claim is not unusual. The government of every country wants the world to believe that its citizens form a harmonious society where the various ethnic, national, and linguistic groups respect each other's differences and get along well. Paeans to unity in diversity are ubiquitous when government officials speak in international contexts. These ritual pronouncements are not only intended to promote a positive and peaceful image of the country, but also to uphold the state's legitimacy. For a state to admit that some groups are excluded, oppressed, or rebellious would put in question the state's legitimate authority to speak for those groups in international contexts.While all countries claim to be harmonious, not all of them want this claim to be examined closely by the international community. In the Canadian case, however, these public pronouncements have been supplemented with efforts to encourage greater international knowledge of Canada's experience. The Canadian government actively funds academic research, conferences, and policy workshops that explore the international relevance of the model, including the Metropolis network on immigration, the Forum of Federations, and the International Council of Canadian Studies. All three of these initiatives provide financial incentives and logistical support for researchers and policy-makers in other countries to examine Canada as a of accommodating diversity. This is of course just a partial list. One could also mention various international contexts where the Canadian government presents itself as a world leader on indigenous issues, and encourages other countries to study its policies.1It might seem surprising that the Canadian government would spend so much time and effort encouraging people in other countries to study our policies on diversity, given that many of these policies are neither popular nor well-understood at home. …
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".