Jewish Communal Identity at the Crossroads: Early Jewish Responses to Canadian Multiculturalism, 1963-1965
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article challenges the assumption that the Canadian Jewish community embraced the discourse and potential of multiculturalism rapidly and enthusiastically. It has been proven that certain groups—most notably the Ukrainians—used the hearings of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which promised to consider the ‘‘contributions of the other ethnic’’ groups, to promote the idea that Canada is multicultural. But the largest organization of Canadian Jewry—the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC)—was very cautious in its dealings with the Commission. It only participated in the Preliminary Hearings, in order to protest the preamble’s language that referred to the ‘‘two founding races. From the records of meetings, it is evident that CJC, based in Montreal—which was the home of the largest Jewish community in Canada at the time—was worried that introducing ‘‘multiculturalism’’ would offend the French. This article also asserts that CJC was not willing to define the Jews as an ethnic group, which was the implied category for groups in the new discourse of multiculturalism. CJC thought that a self-definition of the Jews as an ethnic group would weaken the place of Jews in Canadian society, both because of how Jews defined themselves on the census of 1961 and because they believed that they had a higher profile in the division of society into Protestant—Catholic—Jew than in a society divided into ethnic groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".