MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131783813 · doi:10.7202/013340ar

Microliteracy and the Discourse of Canadian Multiculturalism

2006· article· en· W2131783813 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Cameron J. Reid, R. Robert Nash

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnologies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismGovernment (linguistics)LiteracyClearanceSociologyPolitical scienceGender studiesMedia studiesLinguisticsPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article outlines the chaotic proliferation of multicultural micro-literacies over the decades since the Canadian government first brought the concept of multiculturalism to the national stage in the mid-1960s. The authors define multicultural literacy in terms of patterned and sustained orientations to multiculturalism discourse — orientations that manifest themselves by way of recurrent social and textual practices. In the years prior to 1988 and the official enactment of multiculturalism in Canada, the discourse lent itself to naïve and largely optimistic renderings in a phase of literacy development described in the essay as protoliteracy. Subsequent efforts by the Canadian government to mute the discourse, even as it made multiculturalism into official policy, cleared the way for a post-literate multiplication of multicultural literacies in this country, which severely fragmented and undermined the discourse in the process.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0400.032
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnologiesSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207