Transformative Multiculturalism: Irish Minorities and National Identity in Hard Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the objections to multiculturalism is the idea that it undermines social solidarity and thereby makes redistribution and social justice more difficult to achieve. The argument holds that the overarching union behind the multicultural project is over-taxed by the very project it is asked to support and that to counteract its effects there must be an enhanced focus on “civic integration” (Joppke, 2004, 243). David Goodhart coined the term the “progressive’s dilemma” to describe this effect which says that circumstances force us to choose between a multiculturalist approach that divides us and a national unity approach that binds us together behind a common good (Goodhart 2005, 156; Kymlicka and Banting 2006, 283-9).1 If such an effect exists, it means that multiculturalist states will struggle when it comes to coping with “hard times” especially in the form of economic challenges. This paper argues that this is an unduly pessimistic view. While social solidarity is critical to redistribution during hard times, and while multiculturalism does introduce changes to these relations, the critique is based on a view of multiculturalism as cultivating cultural silos, based on essentialised ideal of a culture (Modood 2007, 97). But this does not adequately capture how multiculturalism works in practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".