Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few qualitative and quantitative studies of multicultural, multiracial leadership programs, or simply MLPs, have been undertaken. This qualitative study is based upon a case study methodology. A comparison of one school board's MLP with similar MLPs offered by other local boards of education is offered. A description and analysis of contemporary Canadian social, cultural, political, and linguistic diversity establishes the context in which these programs are set. A number of different definitions of terms associated with multiculturalism are discussed. Multiculturalism is based upon five general principles: (1) the retention and development of cultures, (2) the sharing of cultures, (3) the development of positive, equitable, and participatory individual and intergroup relations, (4) the respect and observance of human rights and civil liberties, and, (5) equality and equity. Education programs, policies and actions, including MLPs, are based upon some or all of the principles of multiculturalism. The design and implementation of these programs is symbolic of the furtherevolution of multicultural education from a systemic approach within education to a specific curriculum strategy. Within the thesis, a number of conclusions are reached. First, the full implementation of equality and equity within the Canadian society requires greater emphasis; policies, programs and actions which are designed to realize approach this ideal are mandatory. Second, greater access to government reports and materials is required. Third, the area of MLPs requires further investigation and analysis. Four, MLPs are based upon theory and field based strategies designed to increase tolerance, understanding, and acceptance of minority groups. Five, many MLPs share certain commonalities, but are modified according to individual school board needs and resources. Six, among the board level MLPs considered, the Ontario Multicultural, Multiracial Leadership Camp was highly influencial in the design and implementation of local school board camps. Seven, the MLP of the Board being studied requires modification; a number of models of multicultural leadership camps are offered as possible choices.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".