Intercultural Relations in Plural Societies: Research Derived from Canadian Multiculturalism Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One result of the intake and settlement of migrants is the formation of culturally plural societies. In these societies, the domain of intercultural relations is ripe for social psychological research. Such research can provide a knowledge basis for the development and implementation of policies and programmes in plural societies. There are three hypotheses bearing on intercultural relations being examined in much current psychological research: the multiculturalism hypothesis ; the integration hypothesis; and the contact hypothesis . These hypotheses are derived in part from statements in the Canadian multiculturalism policy. The multiculturalism hypothesis is that when individuals and societies are confident in, and feel secure about their own cultural identities and their place in the larger society, more positive mutual attitudes will result; in contrast, when these identities are threatened, mutual hostility will result. The integration hypothesis is that there will be more successful psychological and social outcomes for individuals and societies when strategies and policies that support double cultural engagement (i.e., with both the heritage and national cultures) are pursued. The contact hypothesis is that greater contact between cultural groups will lead to more positive mutual regard, under most contact circumstances. This paper reviews Canadian and international research that is relevant to all three hypotheses, and concludes that research in Canada and elsewhere supports the continuation of the Multiculturalism Policy and programmes that are intended to improve intercultural relations. La formation de sociétés culturellement plurielles est une des conséquences de l'accueil et de l'installation de migrants. Ces sociétés présentent un domaine de relations interculturelles mûr pour une recherche sociale et psychologique qui peut servir de base de connaissances pour y développer et y implanter plusieurs politiques et programmes. Trois hypothèses se répercutent dans les études psychologiques les plus actuelles : l'hypothèse multiculturelle, l'hypothèse de l'intégration et l'hypothèse du contact . Toutes les trois prennent en partie leur source dans des énoncés provenant de la politique du multiculturalisme canadien. Selon la première, si les individus et les sociétés ont confiance en leurs propres identités culturelles et en leur place dans le monde en général, et s'y sentent en sécurité, cela mènera à plus de comportements réciproquement positifs; à l'opposé, lorsque ces identités sont menacées, il en découlera une hostilité mutuelle. Selon la deuxième hypothèse, on obtiendra un plus grand succès psychologiquement et socialement sur le plan individuel et pour les sociétés concernées en poursuivant des stratégies et des politiques qui soutiennent un double engagement culturel (par ex., avec les deux cultures patrimoniales nationales canadiennes). Selon la dernière de ces trois hypothèses, un plus grand contact entre les groupes culturels mènera à une perception mutuellement plus positive, dans la plupart des circonstances de rencontre. Cet article porte sur la recherche canadienne et internationale concernant ces trois hypothèses, et conclut qu'elle soutient au Canada et ailleurs la continuation de la politique et des programmes de multiculturalisme qui visent à améliorer les relations interculturelles.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".