Navigating the Spheres of Multiculturalism, Bilingualism and Federalism: Theoretical, Doctrinal and Constitutional Perspectives on the 'Reasonable Accommodation' Debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent public deliberations and media reports suggest that multiculturalism is both a contentious and widely misunderstood concept within the Canadian public. In Quebec, the controversy over cultural accommodations reached such proportions that in 2007 the provincial government appointed a Royal Commission to look into the matter. To appreciate the rationale, justifications, meaning, and jurisprudential and institutional possibilities of including a multiculturalism provision in the text of the Charter requires a contextual understanding of the multiple cultural interests being advanced by the Constitution. Conventional analyses of Canadian constitutional law tend to afford insufficient attention to either the significant cultural symbolic weight of the Charter, or to the substantive normative pronouncements that directly or indirectly affect cultural 'rights'. The author suggests that understanding multiculturalism in the context of the Canadian Constitution requires not only an appreciation of the theoretical impulses and challenges, and a review of the interpretations of section 27 in the courts. It also necessitates considering the related principles of bilingualism and federalism, which help shape the contours of Canadian multiculturalism.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".