MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284970139 · doi:10.1177/1367877916633833

Hospitality and religious diversity, or, when is home not a home?

2016· article· en· W2284970139 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kyle Conway

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cultural Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHospitalitySociologyDiversity (politics)SecularismPoliticsReligious diversityIdentity (music)ImmigrationState (computer science)Gender studiesGrounded theoryTourismLawPolitical scienceSocial scienceQualitative researchEthnologyAestheticsAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent debates about hospitality and religious diversity frequently hinge on unspoken notions of home. This is especially true in the Canadian province of Quebec, where citizens have worked to establish a secular state after a history of domination by the Catholic Church. In the last two decades, as religious minorities have grown, controversy has arisen about requests for accommodations made on religious grounds. Here I examine responses to those requests and ask what notions of home underpin them. One is grounded in history: its adherents contend that immigrants are guests and should conform to the norms of their new home. It expands the geography of home by linking secularism to collective identity. A second is grounded in political-legal thought: its adherents contend citizens are at home even if their views differ from the majority’s. It recognizes that long-time residents and newcomers mutually influence each other and, over time, people’s identities change.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.028
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207