MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125332327 · doi:10.1111/capa.12040

The representation of ethnic and linguistic groups in the federal civil service of <scp>B</scp>elgium and <scp>C</scp>anada

2013· article· en· W2125332327 on OpenAlexaff
Luc Turgeon, Alain‐G. Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)BureaucracyEthnic groupMulticulturalismPoliticsPolitical scienceMultinational corporationService (business)LinguisticsSociologyGender studiesPublic administrationLawEconomicsEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article investigates how the struggles of national groups have affected the politics of bureaucratic representation of ethnic minorities in Belgium and Canada, and vice‐versa. It argues that the politics of multinational representation in Belgium limited the adoption of measures seeking to guarantee a greater representation of ethnic and racial minorities. In contrast, the politics of multiculturalism in Canada associated with the political mobilization of ethnic groups, contributed to the rejection of measures of guaranteed representation of Francophones in the federal bureaucracy. Measures adopted to increase the representation of Francophones, however, did not impede later attempts to augment representation of visible minorities in the civil service.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicPolitical Systems and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207