MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131256181 · doi:10.1353/ces.2010.0036

An Exploratory Study of How Multiculturalism Policies are Implemented at the Grassroots Level

2010· article· en· W2131256181 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Miu Chung Yan, Shirley Chau, Dave Sangha

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian ethnic studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsMulticulturalismExploratory researchPolitical scienceSociologySocial sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of multiculturalism has become a fixture in Canadian society as part of a nation-building mechanism. In many ways, this suggests a perception that public policies promoting multiculturalism are working. However, this perception is based on assumptions that there is a coherent and shared definition and understanding of the implementation of multiculturalism policies. This paper reports the findings of an exploratory study that examined how multiculturalism policies are actualized at the grassroots level through community organizations. This study involved key informant interviews and focus groups of government staff responsible for the delivery of multiculturalism at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels, as well as discussions with service users and service providers of multiculturalism. Findings of this study show that, first, there is a difference in the understanding of the meaning of the policies among these research participants. Second, there has been a subtle shift of governmental interpretation of multiculturalism policies to an antiracist perspective. Third, although both federal and provincial governments have positioned community organizations as key partners in actualizing multiculturalism policies at the grassroots level, their relationship has been strained, i.e., in order to attain their goals for multiculturalism, community organizations have had to adapt to changing rules and to learn how to maneuver through the funding process. Some policy implications are suggested at the end of the paper. Le concept du multiculturalisme fait partie intégrante du mécanisme de la reconstruction d’une nation au sein de la société canadienne. De plusieurs façons, cela suggère qu’une perception existe selon laquelle les politiques des gouvernements ayant pour but de promouvoir le multiculturalisme fonctionnent bien. Toutefois, cette perception se base sur la prémisse qu’il existe une définition et une compréhension cohérentes et partagées de la mise en œuvre de politiques qui gouvernent le multiculturalisme. Cet article présente le compte rendu des données recueillies lors d’une étude exploratoire de la manière dont les politiques gouvernant le multiculturalisme sont actualisées au niveau fondamental par l’intérmédiaire d’organismes communautaires. Cette étude présente aussi des entretiens tenus avec certaines personnes-ressources clés ainsi qu’avec un groupe de discussion formé de membres du personnel de la fonction publique chargés de la mise en œuvre du multiculturalisme aux niveaux fédéral, provincial et municipal, aussi bien qu’avec les utilisateurs et fournisseurs de services reliés au multiculturalisme. Les données recueillies dans cette étude démontrent que, premièrement, il existe différents niveaux de compréhension de la signification des politiques parmi les participants de ces recherches. Deuxièmement, il existe dans l’interprétation faite par les gouvernements des politiques du multiculturalisme, un transfert subtil vers une perspective antiraciste. Troisièmement, bien que les gouvernements aient visé certains organismes communautaires comme partenaires-clé dans l’actualisation des politiques au niveau fondamental, la relation entre les gouvernements et ces organismes demeure un peu étrange. De plus, à la fin de cet article, nous suggérons certaines implications des politiques gouvernant le multiculturalisme.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian ethnic studiesSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207