MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123075620 · doi:10.3828/bjcs.2013.5

A new Canadian dynamism? From multiculturalism and diversity to history and core values

2013· article· en· W2123075620 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raymond B. Blake

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Canadian Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipDynamismMulticulturalismDiversity (politics)Construct (python library)Identity (music)Political scienceCultural diversitySociologyImmigrationGender studiesEnvironmental ethicsLawPolitical economyEpistemologyAestheticsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines how Canada's new citizenship study guide might be considered a fundamental shift in Canadian citizenship from one emphasising multiculturalism, rights and diversity to one that encourages the integration of newcomers into Canadian society. It contends that the new approach to Canadian citizenship is part of a wider integrationist agenda sweeping much of Europe and settler-countries such as the United States and Australia. While the integrationist approach in the new citizenship study guide does not explicitly reject multiculturalism, rights and diversity, it promotes a greater commitment to a common set of core values rooted in Canada's history and heritage which might be described as a process of liberal assimilationism. The new agenda does not attempt to construct a religious, cultural or ethnically defined Canadian identity; it attempts to construct a shared citizenship within an increasingly diverse Canadian community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0340.048
Scholarly communication0.0160.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207