MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122733896 · doi:10.29173/cjfy18950

Challenges of the Visible Minority Families: Cultural Sensitivity to the Rescue

2013· article· en· W2122733896 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Adenike Yesufu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la Jeunesse · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremiseMulticulturalismImmigrationTransformational leadershipSociologyCultural competenceCultural diversityPublic relationsPolitical scienceMulticultural educationDiversity (politics)PedagogyGender studiesLawEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper not only attempts to outline in one location the many barriers faced by visible minority families in their attempt to integrate into Canadian Society, but it also seeks to offer the development of a new approach to the solution of the problem of Cultural Sensitivity. On the premise that education is transformational, programs like Global education, Multicultural Education, Intercultural Education, Antiracist Education, and Diversity Education have been instituted in Canadian schools. Unfortunately these programs have had serious problems and have been severely criticized in their implementation even by their supporters. They all have different focuses and agendas that do not strike at the core of the problems nascent to majority/minority dynamics in Canada. The ultimate goal of these programs, presumed to be able to attain cross-cultural competence, has left many wondering how effective these programs have been. McChesney (1996) wondered if there was hope for cultural studies. The problems of the visible minority immigrant families have seemed persistent. The frustrations of the younger generation of visible minority families continue to be bewildering. This writer feels it is time to change course.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la JeunesseSame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207