Diversity and Canadian Political Development: Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Ottawa, May 27, 2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This paper argues for a rethinking of how we approach the study of Canadian public policies on diversity and human rights. I explain how human rights can be considered as a distinctive policy field and I consider the advantages and disadvantages of this conceptualization. I then argue for a particular theoretical approach to understanding the evolution of comparative public policies on diversity over time, focusing on a historical, structural and institutional approach to Canadian political development. The development of a specific field of Canadian political development—akin to the subfield of American political development in American politics—can provide a focal point for empirically and historically grounded theorizing about the Canadian case in its North American, comparative and global context. Résumé. Le présent article propose un nouveau regard sur l'étude des politiques publiques canadiennes en matière de diversité et de droits de la personne. J'y explique que les droits de la personne peuvent être considérés comme un champ de politiques distinct et j'y présente les avantages et les inconvénients de cette conceptualisation. Je défends ensuite une approche théorique permettant de cerner l'évolution, au fil des ans, des politiques publiques comparées en matière de diversité, approche qui prend appui sur les dimensions historique, structurelle et institutionnelle du développement politique canadien. L'émergence d'un domaine distinct d'analyse du développement politique canadien – qui s'apparente au sous-domaine du développement politique américain dans la politique américaine – peut servir d'assise à une conceptualisation, ancrée dans l'analyse empirique et historique, du cas canadien dans une perspective nord-américaine, comparative et mondiale.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".