From multicultural differences to different multiculturalisms : locating Canada in international debates on gender, antiracism and human rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
State-sponsored multiculturalism has faced significant social and political challenges in recent years, resulting in the scaling back of most multiculturalism policies in Western nations in favour of more assimilationist models. Against the trend, Canada has remained firm in its commitment to its version of the policy, and continues to assert at a governmental level that multiculturalism is highly valued. This raises questions about why Canadian multiculturalism appears to have survived the challenges that are causing the collapse of other state-sponsored multiculturalisms. The thesis suggests that multiculturalism policies contain foundational philosophies, which are informed by historical rationales that originally justified the creation of multiculturalism, many of which have competing goals. On one hand, multiculturalism contains aspects of systemic racism that are based in the way a nation has historically engaged with diversity; on the other hand, it is a policy designed to promote inclusive equality. These two principles manifest throughout the many rationales that created the policy. Canada's capacity to balance competing interests within the policy has enabled Canadian multiculturalism to adapt to challenges in a manner that not all other multiculturalisms have been able to emulate. Among other contemporary challenges, the charge has been laid against multiculturalism that it fosters the spread of excessively patriarchal cultures in liberal national spaces, and subsequently should be abandoned in favour of more assimilationist models that protect against gender abuse, and abuse of liberal principles of individual human rights. By carefully analyzing the foundational philosophies in contemporary Canadian multiculturalism, the thesis shows that in the Canadian case this charge is based on a number of inaccurate assumptions, which, once corrected, indicate that state-sponsored forms of multiculturalism may actually promote gender equality, as well as open increased avenues for advanced levels of cultural human rights. The thesis proposes a framework for advancing human rights through a fresh look at the individual rights versus group rights debate, and demonstrates how Canada is uniquely poised, through multiculturalism, to establish advanced access to equality and freedom of cultural practice for a diverse population.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.058 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".