Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presentation comprises three main elements 1. A review of the development of multiculturalism policy from the perspective of the author’s experience as a senior government official working on those issues in the late 1960s and 70s, and later as Official Languages Commissioner and Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. 2. An analysis of the similarities and differences between the multiculturalism model and the interculturalism policy put forward by the Quebec authorities. 3. An examination of how multiculturalism can be accommodated within a framework of common Canadian values. The author concludes that “Canadians seem … to have succeeded in their ‘multicultural gamble’ more effectively than one might have expected,” and that, for the future, with changing demographic patterns and population movements, some form of multiculturalism may well be inevitable. L’exposé comprend trois éléments principaux : 1. Un compte rendu du développement de la politique du multiculturalisme du point de vue d’un cadre supérieur responsable de ces questions dans les années 60 et 70, et, par la suite, comme Commisssaire aux langues officielles et Président de la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne. 2. Une analyse des ressemblances et différences entre la politique du multiculturalisme et celle de l’interculturalisme mis en avant par les autorités québécoises. 3. Un examen de la manière dont le multiculturalisme peut entrer dans le cadre de valeurs canadiennes communes. L’auteur conclut que «les Canadiens semblent … avoir réussi leur ‘pari multiculturel’ mieux que l’on n’aurait pu s’y attendre», et qu’à l’avenir, vu les changements démographiques et les mouvements de populations qui se dessinent, une certaine forme de multiculturalisme pourrait bien s’avérer inévitable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.007 |
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".